Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)
At 05:55 PM Thursday 5/12/2005, Doug Pensinger wrote: Debbi wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip And what sort of a teal, anyway? Oh...oh, *dearie* me. turning a delicate shade of tomato...or perhaps persimmon -- mayhap pomagranate? Debbi Cinnamon Teal Flight Path Maru`:} Well, anyway, mine are _pink_ when they are visible, which they _are not_!!! -- Doug So there maru Can't argue with logic like that . . . You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)
Ronn! wrote: I wrote: Well, anyway, mine are _pink_ when they are visible, which they _are not_!!! -- Doug So there maru Can't argue with logic like that . . . What's logic got to do with it? 8^) You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru Humpty back camels and a brace o' fleas? -- Doug Dating ourselves maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru Humpy back camels and some chimpanzees Julia Ask Me About Thanksgiving '75 Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)
On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:06:39 -0500, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru Humpy back camels and some chimpanzees Julia Ask Me About Thanksgiving '75 Maru What about Thanksgiving '75? -- Doug hmmm, where was I - benieth the sea? maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)
Doug Pensinger wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:06:39 -0500, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru Humpy back camels and some chimpanzees Julia Ask Me About Thanksgiving '75 Maru What about Thanksgiving '75? A fond memory of hearing that song. It might have been the first time I heard the song. My grandfather put the record on for me in the basement and then went back upstairs to the kitchen where he had more work to do on Thanksgiving dinner. I was already all dressed up for dinner, in a dress, and dancing around to the music. Funny what sticks in your mind from childhood (Of course, in high school, I got a cassette tape with it, and played that a lot. Not as much as I played, say, Beethoven's 6th Symphony, but still fairly frequently.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
On 5/4/05, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 3, 2005, at 8:17 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:25 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote: ... Oh . . . did you mean Who do I think is calling him- or herself 'God' when posting to the list? Um, yeah. I guess I could have been more specific. But I really enjoyed your thorough answer. Would you like to know more? The text of your answer was already very familiar -- in fact, I think I had parts of it memorized at one point. For a year or so back in the '80s, I dated a Mormon woman who worked with me at HP, which is how I recognized your answer as LDS catechism. I believe I had a substantial portion of it memorized at one point or another. I credit our relationship with helping me find my way back to God. That, and my roommate at the time, the son of the Lutheran Bishop of Northern Minnesota. It was quite a time in my life, with my girlfriend and her bishop father speaking their faith in one ear and my roommate and his bishop father speaking theirs in the other. I appreciated the opportunity to approach Christianity again from such diverse viewpoints. So thank you, but I am already quite happy with the relationship I have with God. Save a seat in the terrestrial kingdom for me, I guess. I'll be there with all the other religion-addled brains :-). I repeat my question... You apparently have a theory about the identity of the poster who called God. I am interested to hear your theory. Peace, Dave Perhaps he has no theory, yet I do: from the fact that his posts are moderated and occasionally blocked, he is clearly not omnipotent. Yet, he claims to be God! We know already from our illustrious Gnostic forebears who the false God is: he is Samael the Blind God! Do not the Nag Hammadi codices mark him as the 'occluded one', irrational and angry, ever fighting the true Heavenly Father? He attempts to divide the readers from the adminstrators^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H to divide the earthly humans from the true supreme deity who created all; need we more evidence? Let those who have eyes, see; ears, hear. ~Maru Come, let us drink this delicious Kool-Aid and cast off the shackles of our gross material bodies! ; ) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
Look, this flame bait is really kind of over the top now, isn't it? Obviously there's a history here, but frankly what that history is applies only because those involved are choosing to make it do so. I don't think goading or coy allusions to prior misdeeds by (apparently) now-banned posters is particularly edifying. While it's arguable that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it, I think it's as valid to suggest that those who do not *let go* of history are equally stuck. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote: Behalf Of God Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that would force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; hold them accountable for what they say and do on this list. Then see how many (or rather: how few) of those questions will actually get answered. Oooo...! It looks like God has just tipped his hand. I mean if it gets through my dense skull, it must be obvious to everyone else... I've had brain surgery, and had a pretty solid cranium to begin with, so please enlighten me... Who do you think God is? quote God Is the Ruler of Heaven and Earth The prophets have taught us that God is the almighty ruler of the universe. God dwells in heaven (see DC 20:17). Through his Son, Jesus Christ, he created heaven and earth and all things that are in them (see Moses 2:1). He made the moon, the stars, and the sun. He organized this world and gave it form, motion, and life. He filled the air and the water with living things. He covered the hills and plains with all kinds of animal life. He gave us day and night, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest. He made man in his own image to be a ruler over his other creations (see Genesis 1:2627). God is the one supreme and absolute being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things (see Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 1823). What Kind of Being Is God? Because we are made in his image (see Moses 6:9), we know that God has a body that looks like ours. His eternal spirit is housed in a tangible body of flesh and bones (see DC 130:22). Gods body, however, is perfected and glorified, with a glory beyond all description. God is perfect. He is a God of love, mercy, charity, truth, power, faith, knowledge, and judgment. He has all power. He knows all things. He is full of goodness. All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like hima god. He has said, Behold, this is my work and my gloryto bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39). http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/home%20and%20family.htm/gospel%20principles.htm/our%20premortal%20life%20with%20god%20unit%20one.htm/our%20father%20in%20heaven%20chapter%201.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0 God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of Deity. Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body (Joseph F. Smith, The Origin of Man, Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 78, 80). Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see DC 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 26). Because we are the spiritual children of our heavenly parents, we have inherited the potential to develop their divine qualities. If we choose to do so, we can become perfect, just as they are. http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/home%20and%20family.htm/gospel%20principles.htm/our%20premortal%20life%20with%20god%20unit%20one.htm/our%20heavenly%20family%20chapter%202.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0 /quote Hope This Helps Maru -- Ronn! :) Oh . . . did you mean Who do I think is calling him- or herself God when posting to the list? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote: Behalf Of God Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that would force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; hold them accountable for what they say and do on this list. Then see how many (or rather: how few) of those questions will actually get answered. Oooo...! It looks like God has just tipped his hand. I mean if it gets through my dense skull, it must be obvious to everyone else... I've had brain surgery, and had a pretty solid cranium to begin with, so please enlighten me... Who do you think God is? quote snipped Thank you, Brother Blankenship. And you didn't even have to put on your Missionary Uniform! Oh . . . did you mean Who do I think is calling him- or herself God when posting to the list? Um, yeah. I guess I could have been more specific. But I really enjoyed your thorough answer. Dave Insofar as it is Correctly Translated Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
At 09:25 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote: Behalf Of God Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that would force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; hold them accountable for what they say and do on this list. Then see how many (or rather: how few) of those questions will actually get answered. Oooo...! It looks like God has just tipped his hand. I mean if it gets through my dense skull, it must be obvious to everyone else... I've had brain surgery, and had a pretty solid cranium to begin with, so please enlighten me... Who do you think God is? quote snipped Thank you, Brother Blankenship. And you didn't even have to put on your Missionary Uniform! Or visit a barber for an appropriate haircut shave (no longer available for two bits) . . . Oh . . . did you mean Who do I think is calling him- or herself 'God' when posting to the list? Um, yeah. I guess I could have been more specific. But I really enjoyed your thorough answer. Would you like to know more? The Above Question Is Written In Black Instead Of Golden To Avoid Annoying The List Administrators Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
On May 3, 2005, at 8:17 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:25 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote: Behalf Of God Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that would force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; hold them accountable for what they say and do on this list. Then see how many (or rather: how few) of those questions will actually get answered. Oooo...! It looks like God has just tipped his hand. I mean if it gets through my dense skull, it must be obvious to everyone else... I've had brain surgery, and had a pretty solid cranium to begin with, so please enlighten me... Who do you think God is? quote snipped Thank you, Brother Blankenship. And you didn't even have to put on your Missionary Uniform! Or visit a barber for an appropriate haircut shave (no longer available for two bits) . . . Oh . . . did you mean Who do I think is calling him- or herself 'God' when posting to the list? Um, yeah. I guess I could have been more specific. But I really enjoyed your thorough answer. Would you like to know more? The text of your answer was already very familiar -- in fact, I think I had parts of it memorized at one point. For a year or so back in the '80s, I dated a Mormon woman who worked with me at HP, which is how I recognized your answer as LDS catechism. I believe I had a substantial portion of it memorized at one point or another. I credit our relationship with helping me find my way back to God. That, and my roommate at the time, the son of the Lutheran Bishop of Northern Minnesota. It was quite a time in my life, with my girlfriend and her bishop father speaking their faith in one ear and my roommate and his bishop father speaking theirs in the other. I appreciated the opportunity to approach Christianity again from such diverse viewpoints. So thank you, but I am already quite happy with the relationship I have with God. Save a seat in the terrestrial kingdom for me, I guess. I'll be there with all the other religion-addled brains :-). I repeat my question... You apparently have a theory about the identity of the poster who called God. I am interested to hear your theory. Peace, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
snip Dan: Frank: The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa, and the US is not a police force. The US is just the strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations can be stronger than the US, but at present these nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder, this alliance might form, which might start another cold war. You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany would prefer a world in which China were the major power? Europe decided after the Cold War to continue to expect the US to look after its security interests. There is a lot of difference between apeasing China while knowing that the US can be counted on to ensure that the government of China does not conquer others (such as the people of Tawain) and living in a world where China calls the tune. Germany would not prefer such a world, nor would France. But China would. Can you imagine an alliance between China, Russia and several islamic states? Mutual disgust drives them apart, even inside the islamic world, but if push comes to shove... Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear annihilation. There would be so many ways to challange the US short of that type of war, that I can't see this. These 'so many ways' existed in the cold war, too, but we still lived in fear of the mushroom cloud. snip I have hoped for such altruistic interventions several times in recent years, but most of the time they either weren't altruistic or there was no intervention... Let me ask you a question about the Balkans, then. Why didn't Europe willing to do what it took to stop the genocide? Why did the US have to twist arms in Europe, when the US's interest in a stable Europe could be no greater than Europe's interest in a stable Europe? Why did Europe have to have the US take care of it's house? If you want a less imperial US, wouldn't it make sense to take responsibility for those areas where the US was glad to just help out, as in the Balkans? Dan M. Because Europe was deeply split over the Balkans. Germany on one side, Britain and France on the other, the smaller nations on the third. When the civil war in Yugoslavia began, unified Germany had just turned from officially being occupied by the Four Powers to being a sovereign state. German chancellor Kohl had apparently decided to change the foreign policy from humble negotiations in which everyone gained to openly show Europe that Germany was powerful now, and assert support for Slovenia and Croatia. These states were part of Germany's ally Austria-Hungary in WW1 and firmly under German control in WW2 when Hitler encouraged Croatian massacres on Serbs. So Germany's step raised fear in Britain and France whose last memories of a powerful Germany were also extremely bad, and allowed Milosevic to present himself as an old brother in arms. So whenever Germans pointed out Serb atrocities, this was dismissed as German propaganda. It would probably been wise if Germany had let the smaller nations step forward and let them explain to France and Britain what was really happening, but the mood was too confrontational for that. So when as one of the last people Mitterrand realized that the Serbs were *really* the bad guys (when they tried to shoot down his plane), the civil war had become so intense that everyone feared if they stepped in *now*, a lot of soldiers would return in body bags. So in the end, the US was called in, and the Bosnians and Croats got better weapons, until they were strong enough to strike back. If you wonder why I haven't mentioned Russia: at the beginning, Russia was rather trying to reach a peaceful solution, only over the years, ties to Serbia formed and became stronger. If you ask when I would have wanted an intervention: when the fighting in Croatia was over, and an agreement between Croatians and Croatian Serbs was made, Bosnian Serbs began their actions. The Bosnian government asked the EU for help, but the answer was the EU could only help if Bosnia split off Yugoslavia like Croatia did before. After that step of declaring independence, the intervention never came. And back then, many Bosnian Serbs were still demonstrating together with Croats and Muslims that they were all one nation (late in the civil war there were at least three). What's your perspective on this? (for the above I relied on my memory, which may be faulty, not on research. I might accidentally misrepresent facts) -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 12:57 AM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 Dan, et al, OK, I wrote the whole message below, then realized that I'm getting way too much into argumentation and not nearly enough into being simple and clear. So go ahead and read and tear apart the message that begins with Dan Wrote:, but consider this my reply: The main thing that promted me to reply to JDG was the phrase there are simply no good options. I worry when I hear language like that. I can understand that, but if you look at the preface (now that N. Korea has nuclear weapons) I think it is clear that JDG now considers military options less attractive than they were before. I think this is fair, with capacity for 6-8 atomic bombs, as well as a decent delivery system, N. Korea's government's ability to drag people down with it has increased from roughly a quarter million to roughly 2.0-2.5 million. Plus, with the fuel that can be extracted during the present shutdown, there should be an additional capacity for 6 more bombsallowing N. Korea to obtain a good deal of money from the right sources by selling these bombs while maintaining the deterrent of 6-8 bombs. It triggers the desperate times call for desperate measures meme, in which people and nations often become careless about the relative goodness or badness of options, and start just killing 'em all and letting god sort 'em out. That's really my point: I don't want to stop trying to find the least bad options that are left. I agree with that. I interpret no good option as indicating that the demonstration that the proposed path is an extremely unappealing option is not sufficient to reject the path. Rather, it most be compared with the other extremely unappealing options to see which is best to do. The real risk of the US going into a killing 'em and letting God sort 'em out mode is a very significant attack on the US. By very significant, I'm referring to something that will kill multiple tens of thousands of people. The main worry for me is a shielded A-bomb in a shipping container, sent to a US address. It hits a major port, such as NY, LA, or Houston and is set off before or as customs inspects it. -- And now, my not-as-good option in replying -- Dan Wrote: On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a position to let or not let nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A police force that looks the other way lets them run a city. OK, and yours is a rhetorical device that I don't find particularly useful, either, especially given this administration's disregard for international legal systems. OK, you don't like the analogy...the point is that one often lets adults do things by not setting up boundaries. But, given the track record of the international legal system with regard to genocide...in particular the fact that international law required government to step aside in the Balkans, I'm not sure that always abiding by it is called for. I asked an unanswered question about the past and potential for future genocide in Sudan. 1) Is the African violation of international law by temporarily stopping the genocide in the Sudan wrong? 2) Would it be wrong for NATO to help them if called upon? (Almost) nobody in those communities questions the right of the police to act on their behalf. What law is the DPRK violating in building nukes, and what community employed the US as its police force? The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the obvious one. The North Korean government letting their own citizens starve to death is clearly acceptable under the UN; I won't argue that point. These are not (just) rhetorical questions. If the DPRK is the mob, then of what community's laws is it in violation? Would the US would subject itself to that same authority? In what community would (almost) nobody question our right to act on their behalf? I wasn't One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its often associated with codependancy. I'm glad you brought up codependency. A common -- in fact, almost defining -- facet of codependent behavior is trying to solve someone else's problems when they didn't ask you to. Like invading a country to rid it of a dictator. How sure are you of this? My wife is a psychotherapist and the key for her has been enabling behavior. Letting one's drug addict son have free room and board without consequences is co-dependant. Covering for the mistakes of an alchoholic
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
I wonder if people forget that China is just next door to North Korea, and that they even have an alliance. Not that the Chinese like Kim Jong Il so much, but they'd never tolerate an invasion like the US did in Afghanistan or Iraq. However the Chinese might topple Kim Jong Il themselves if the USA would give them Taiwan in exchange. Which opens another can of worms. -- +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:32:37 -0500, Dan Minette wrote We are lucky in that we can collectively, within the nation, intervene with professionals by calling 911 in those cases or reporting suspected abuse to authorities. I think Dave's point was that you can't solve somebody else's problem with addiction, nor can any authority. It is up to the person with the addiction. No addict ever quit as a result of threats and attacks, I'm fairly certain. Those who seek to change have been helped by people who know how to nurture, including having tough boundaries that seem like punishment to the addict. Recovery starts with things like sleep and nutrition. To stretch the analogy to international relations, we can't force democracy (our definition of healthy government) on a nation that doesn't want it, for example. Sanctions and monitoring, such as the inspections and no-fly zone seem to parallel the idea of putting boundaries on the misbehaving individual. Food for oil was an attempt to tackle basic health issues. Invading, occupying and demanding democracy don't fit into any personal recovery model I can imagine. By moral people. The US will not for the forseeable future subject itself to submission to outside agencies. It's wrong to sit back and let Japan be obliterated by N. Korea if we could stop it. It's also very much against the interests of the US. Combining the two, we have compelling reasons to not allow N. Korea this capacity. Stopping a nuclear attack has never been the question (since WW II ended), since nobody has actually tried to launch one. The question has always been much murkier -- do we allow further development of nuclear weapons? Stopping nuclear proliferation has the approval of most of the world; the question is how to go about it, not whether or not it is appropriate to stop anyone from launching nukes. Preventing someone from causing grave harm to us and our allies is not codependant behavior. Of course. But how do we decide that someone is about to cause grave harm? That's the hard question, not whether to respond. Ideally, like the police at their best, we do absolutely everything we can to avoid coming to such a confrontation, then do everything we can to allow the other party to back down. Do we trust that we can decide when to use deadly force on our own, despite our capacity for self-deceit and our selfish side that thirsts for wealth and power? How do we take into account the fact that our response to threats may cause enormous suffering? I think your wife might say that these are just the problems that people struggle with on a personal level, too -- what seems to be done selflessly is often discovered to be self-interest; much harm is done in the name of doing good for others. That's codependency for ya. The answer, I think, lies in self-awareness... so how does a nation develop its self-awareness? How do we look in the mirror, how do we discover our motives? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
Dan: dland: snip Dan Wrote: On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a position to let or not let nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A police force that looks the other way lets them run a city. The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa, and the US is not a police force. The US is just the strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations can be stronger than the US, but at present these nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder, this alliance might form, which might start another cold war. Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear annihilation. OK, and yours is a rhetorical device that I don't find particularly useful, either, especially given this administration's disregard for international legal systems. OK, you don't like the analogy...the point is that one often lets adults do things by not setting up boundaries. But, given the track record of the international legal system with regard to genocide... in particular the fact that international law required government to step aside in the Balkans, I'm not sure that always abiding by it is called for. I asked an unanswered question about the past and potential for future genocide in Sudan. 1) Is the African violation of international law by temporarily stopping the genocide in the Sudan wrong? 2) Would it be wrong for NATO to help them if called upon? If the US against the international legal system, they should think about the reactions. Other nations might not trust the US to keep their treaties with them any more. And then the US people will wonder once again why the world hates them so much... If, on the other hand, the US could prove that they didn't do it for themselves but to stop a horrible genocide, and accidents with US troops killing civilans are rare, the US might even get a better reputation. (I don't believe for a second that starving Iraqi children were the main reason for the invasion. But I heard lots about WMD, which were not present, and Saddam being behind 9/11, which was not true.) Now for Sudan, if the African intervention, aided by NATO, actually benefits Sudan more than any of the intervening forces, I'd be impressed. I think true altruism is a good excuse for going against a legal system if that system is deadlocked by non-democratic nations. I have hoped for such altruistic interventions several times in recent years, but most of the time they either weren't altruistic or there was no intervention... -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates! www.egscomics.com +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
On Apr 25, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:32:37 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Preventing someone from causing grave harm to us and our allies is not codependant behavior. Of course. But how do we decide that someone is about to cause grave harm? That's the hard question, not whether to respond. Ideally, like the police at their best, we do absolutely everything we can to avoid coming to such a confrontation, then do everything we can to allow the other party to back down. Most police forces have a Crime Prevention Unit. It does not, generally speaking, preemptively invade the homes of potential criminals. It does run programs that aim to address the causes of crime. If we're going to use a criminal justice model to describe international relations, perhaps that's what's needed, as opposed to a SWAT team. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 5:11 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 On Apr 25, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:32:37 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Preventing someone from causing grave harm to us and our allies is not codependant behavior. Of course. But how do we decide that someone is about to cause grave harm? That's the hard question, not whether to respond. Ideally, like the police at their best, we do absolutely everything we can to avoid coming to such a confrontation, then do everything we can to allow the other party to back down. Most police forces have a Crime Prevention Unit. It does not, generally speaking, preemptively invade the homes of potential criminals. It does run programs that aim to address the causes of crime. If we're going to use a criminal justice model to describe international relations, perhaps that's what's needed, as opposed to a SWAT team. OK, I never meant to advance the criminal justice model for international relationships. I was merely pointing out a counter example to the notion that interfering with the actions of another country presupposes that the leaders of the other country are children. Do you think that the criminal justice model as a good one? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
On Apr 25, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Dan Minette wrote: OK, I never meant to advance the criminal justice model for international relationships. I was merely pointing out a counter example to the notion that interfering with the actions of another country presupposes that the leaders of the other country are children. Do you think that the criminal justice model as a good one? Not really. I think a community of nations is more apt, and does not preclude recognition of the need for a criminal justice system within that community. It calls upon citizen-nations to be responsible members of the community, to respect others' rights, and to contribute to the common wealth. Personally, I am drawn to the family of nations analogy, but it suffers from the problem that you point out above: it implies that there are parent nations and child nations, and that's not necessarily conducive to clear thinking about our roles in the world. Your question reminds me that the metaphors we choose have power. The president's use of the phrase permission slip in the state of the union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of hall pass. That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness. Thanks for reminding me of that, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 Your question reminds me that the metaphors we choose have power. The president's use of the phrase permission slip in the state of the union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of hall pass. That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness. The obvious question here is whether seriously consider means more than just seriously consider. The US is unique in that it can project meaningful military power. The strongest example of that is the Balkans, where Europe was unable to project power 500 miles from the German border against a relatively weak Yugoslavian army. Thus, the heavy lifting in any significant military action must be done by the United States. Do you think that, after seriously considering objections, it is OK for the US to go ahead, or must it get approval. For me, the argument that the United States should have had Russia approval (needed for UN approval) to stop the genocide in the Balkans is not very strong. The Russian government had reasons to turn a blind eye to this genocide. I think that the decision as to the wisdom of invading Iraq need not give a strong weight to France's position, since they appeared to be in a position to gain significantly if Hussein stayed in power. So, if your argument is that Bush tends to be pigheaded and plow ahead without regard to other views when he is certain, then I will agree. But, if it that, for the US to properly consider the views of other nations, that it must give veto rights over certain foreign policy actions to other nations, then I would tend to differ with that. An extremely good set of articles that relate to this are available at: http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/871 I think much of the argument can be framed as a difference between two worldviews: If we want the world to be a Kantian paradise then we should start acting in accordance with the rules that should govern nations in a Kantian paradise now. If we want the world to be a Kantian paradise, we need to live in the world, recognizing that the present rules are Hobbsnian. If we act as though it were presently a Kantian paradise, we invite disaster. I'll agree beforehand that the first position may actually be more idealistic than the views of folks on the list, but I think I heard that type of argument a good deal in the last couple of weeks here. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
On Apr 25, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Dan Minette wrote: So, if your argument is that Bush tends to be pigheaded and plow ahead without regard to other views when he is certain, then I will agree. But, if it that, for the US to properly consider the views of other nations, that it must give veto rights over certain foreign policy actions to other nations, then I would tend to differ with that. In the final analysis, we're not that far apart. At the risk of being considered an America-hater, Bush is a kind of ur-American: we tend to be pigheaded and plow ahead without regard to other views when we are certain. The other question -- to what extent a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that the US should give a measure of veto power to those opinions -- is the business of diplomacy, so I will continue to just hope that our diplomats will make that call wisely. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The US and the DPRK Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
At 09:01 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a position to let or not let nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. The US is the most powerful country in the world. Given how incredibly bad it is for us that the DPRK has nuclear weapons, if we had any ability to prevent the DPRK from acquiring those weapons, shouldn't we do so? Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. Do children ordinarily invade their neighbors, starve millions of people, torture thousands of others, and engage in terrorism?If not, what's the point of the analogy here? Not to let our children play with nuclear weapons? there are simply no good options. Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last* resort, not the first. I'm all ears.In fact, I am sure that Condi would be very, very, interested as well. At 10:57 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: OK, I wrote the whole message below, then realized that I'm getting way too much into argumentation and not nearly enough into being simple and clear. So go ahead and read and tear apart the message that begins with Dan Wrote:, but consider this my reply: Well, I responded anyways, because your message did raise some questions for me that might help clarify our difference in positions. The main thing that promted me to reply to JDG was the phrase there are simply no good options. I worry when I hear language like that. It triggers the desperate times call for desperate measures meme, in which people and nations often become careless about the relative goodness or badness of options, and start just killing 'em all and letting god sort 'em out. That's really my point: I don't want to stop trying to find the least bad options that are left. I think you missed my point about there are simply no good options. It was meant to imply the same conclusion as you do - we should try and find the least bad options that are left. My dismal attitude was intended to reflect the fact that even the least bad option that is left is still incredibly, incredibly, bad for us not let God sort it out. What law is the DPRK violating in building nukes, and what community employed the US as its police force? I would counter: does the DPRK need to be violating a law for the US to try to stop the DPRK from getting nuclear weapons in your view? You obviously were not in favor of stopping the weapons development by force. 200k dead S. Koreans was certainly an overwhelming price. But, to let North Korea get to the point where they could flatten both South Korea and Japan (say 90% dead) would be inexcusable. Inexcusable by whom? The UN? Like we care. International courts? Don't make me laugh. This gets back to the point I made earlier about global entities to whom the US would subject itself. Since the US has formall commitments to defend both the ROK and Japan, and as the US considers the ROK and Japan to be close friends, the US certainly does care, and this would put us in quite a pickle. We have a government that's willing to starve millions of its own citizens for some principal. Why wouldn't it be willing to bring down the whole region instead of giving up that principal? If we don't stop it, when we can, are we not somewhat responsible for that result? Why do we not consider ourselves responsible for the starvation of millions of N. Korean citizens? Are we making plans to do something about that? For the record, the US has only nominal trade embargos on the DPRK, and is one of the larger donators of humanitarian aid to the DPRK. Starvation in the DPRK is largely a function of how much humanitarian aid the government of the DPRK refuses in a given year. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:53 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 In the final analysis, we're not that far apart. At the risk of being considered an America-hater, Bush is a kind of ur-American: we tend to be pigheaded and plow ahead without regard to other views when we are certain. Weaker countries have to consider other countries' viewpoints. I'm trying to think of times in history when the most powerful country in the world sought considerable more consensus than the US has in the last 20-30 years. Do you have examples? The other question -- to what extent a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that the US should give a measure of veto power to those opinions -- is the business of diplomacy, so I will continue to just hope that our diplomats will make that call wisely. Veto power quite a bit to give up. Countries reactions to the actions of the US must be considered of course, but I don't think that means we give up the right to stop us from doing things that we are convinced are both in our own interest and does not significantly harm others. The founding fathers thought such a decent respect required us to explain our motives, not check for approval. Are you saying that there are circumstances under which the opinions of the governments of Germany, France, Russia, and China would be enough to stop us acting in a manner we have determined to be in our best interests as well as morally acceptable? Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: Frank Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 4:36 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 Dan: dland: snip Dan Wrote: On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a position to let or not let nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A police force that looks the other way lets them run a city. The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa, and the US is not a police force. The US is just the strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations can be stronger than the US, but at present these nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder, this alliance might form, which might start another cold war. You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany would prefer a world in which China were the major power? Europe decided after the Cold War to continue to expect the US to look after its security interests. There is a lot of difference between apeasing China while knowing that the US can be counted on to ensure that the government of China does not conquer others (such as the people of Tawain) and living in a world where China calls the tune. Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear annihilation. There would be so many ways to challange the US short of that type of war, that I can't see this. For all of it's displeasure, Europe is making no moves to stop its reliance on the US's defence of it's interests. Japan and South Korea are working to lessen theirs, but that has been with the encouragement and cooperation of the US. 1) Is the African violation of international law by temporarily stopping the genocide in the Sudan wrong? 2) Would it be wrong for NATO to help them if called upon? If the US against the international legal system, they should think about the reactions. Other nations might not trust the US to keep their treaties with them any more. And then the US people will wonder once again why the world hates them so much... If, on the other hand, the US could prove that they didn't do it for themselves but to stop a horrible genocide, and accidents with US troops killing civilans are rare, the US might even get a better reputation. (I don't believe for a second that starving Iraqi children were the main reason for the invasion. But I heard lots about WMD, which were not present, and Saddam being behind 9/11, which was not true.) No, but it was a factor in the discussion going into it. Gautam has listed 4 criteria for a war of choicewhich have been ignored by anyone but me. I think they are a good way to frame the debate, and am not sure why others would not wish to consider them. A war of choice must 1) Be in the best interest of the nation fighting the war 2) The goals of the war should have a reasonable chance of being reached. 3) Other reasonable means have been tried. 4) The war will, at least, do no net harm to the people in the region. Starting a war will kill civilians, there is no way around it. If the number of civilians killed by the government in a year is greater than the range of civilians expected to be killed during the war and the rest of the year after the war, then the civilians are better off with the war than without. It is a considerationthe other considerations of US national interest were very complicated. Now for Sudan, if the African intervention, aided by NATO, actually benefits Sudan more than any of the intervening forces, I'd be impressed. I think true altruism is a good excuse for going against a legal system if that system is deadlocked by non-democratic nations. I have hoped for such altruistic interventions several times in recent years, but most of the time they either weren't altruistic or there was no intervention... Let me ask you a question about the Balkans, then. Why didn't Europe willing to do what it took to stop the genocide? Why did the US have to twist arms in Europe, when the US's interest in a stable Europe could be no greater than Europe's interest in a stable Europe? Why did Europe have to have the US take care of it's house? If you want a less imperial US, wouldn't it make sense to take responsibility for those areas where the US was glad to just help out, as in the Balkans? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
On Apr 25, 2005, at 10:15 PM, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Frank Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa, and the US is not a police force. The US is just the strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations can be stronger than the US, but at present these nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder, this alliance might form, which might start another cold war. You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany would prefer a world in which China were the major power? Naturally not. Germany would prefer a world in which Germany was the major power. China would prefer a world in which Chinese rule is unquestioned. And Kim Jong Il would just love a world wherein everyone wore perfect haircuts. And was from North Korea. Wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt who suggested speaking softly and carrying a big stick? What ever happened to that philosophy? It really does seem that we've been all stick lately. We've been, as it were, sticking it to anyone we care to. Not literally, but it sure can seem that way some days. Gautam has listed 4 criteria for a war of choicewhich have been ignored by anyone but me. I think they are a good way to frame the debate, and am not sure why others would not wish to consider them. A war of choice must 1) Be in the best interest of the nation fighting the war 2) The goals of the war should have a reasonable chance of being reached. 3) Other reasonable means have been tried. 4) The war will, at least, do no net harm to the people in the region. These are interesting points. By their criteria, I find Iraq (example) even less justifiable than before! ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
At 10:13 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: JDG wrote At 01:34 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more umm, nuance in my typing tone. It clearly wasn't a very good rhetorical question - and it wasn't the lack of nuance, it was the weakness of the question itself. Well, it was a poorly phrased rhetorical question, I concede. As a simple question, I don't see it as weak. I am not sure how such a blunt question can be weak (or strong for that matter) And why isn't the US invading North Korea? I will happily accept that the answer may be obvious, hence the rhetorical nature of it, and even that it could be considered a stupid question. Well, ordinarily, a rhetorical quesiton is one so pointed that it conveys a line of argumentation without requiring an answer. When a rhetorical question is trivially simple to dismiss, as yours way, it probably fails in conveying any meaningful line of argumentation. Anyway. What do you think should be done about North Korea? It is troublesome that such an unstable state has nuclear weapons. And an apparent lack of interest in its own peoples welfare. Pray. Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, there are simply no good options. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 6:03 PM Subject: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 Pray. Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, there are simply no good options. Were there good options when they could kill 200k in Seoul without nuclear weapons. It's not nuclear weapons, per se, that are the problem. It's the ability of those weapons to enhance the damage that could be done. So, since the three options that Clinton had in '94 were: 1) The buy half a loaf option 2) Invade and have hundreds of thousands of S. Koreans killed 3) Let things progress, and see N. Korea producing 40-50 bombs/year by 2000. You said #1 was a failure. Which one of the others would you have picked when Clinton had this choice? It appears to me that Bush has chosen #3.except that construction on the big reactor has not restarted yet. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a position to let or not let nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. there are simply no good options. Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last* resort, not the first. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 11:01 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a position to let or not let nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A police force that looks the other way lets them run a city. One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its often associated with codependancy. there are simply no good options. Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last* resort, not the first. OK, let's go back 11 years. Clinton had the three options...he chose to pay money in a deal to slow down the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea. They agreed to stop processing fuel...leaving then with enough in hand for two nuclear weapons. Unsurprisingly, they had a clandescent program going on, and were in a position to develop enough enriched U for about 1 bomb every 3-4 years. Much better than 50/year. At the time the North Korean government was willing to starve millions of its own citizens to death as an acceptable price for not just changing the government, but not changing how the government was run. If Clinton wasn't given a third half loaf option at the last minute, You obviously were not in favor of stopping the weapons development by force. 200k dead S. Koreans was certainly an overwhelming price. But, to let North Korea get to the point where they could flatten both South Korea and Japan (say 90% dead) would be inexcusable. We have a government that's willing to starve millions of its own citizens for some principal. Why wouldn't it be willing to bring down the whole region instead of giving up that principal? If we don't stop it, when we can, are we not somewhat responsible for that result? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
Dan, et al, OK, I wrote the whole message below, then realized that I'm getting way too much into argumentation and not nearly enough into being simple and clear. So go ahead and read and tear apart the message that begins with Dan Wrote:, but consider this my reply: The main thing that promted me to reply to JDG was the phrase there are simply no good options. I worry when I hear language like that. It triggers the desperate times call for desperate measures meme, in which people and nations often become careless about the relative goodness or badness of options, and start just killing 'em all and letting god sort 'em out. That's really my point: I don't want to stop trying to find the least bad options that are left. Dave -- And now, my not-as-good option in replying -- Dan Wrote: On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a position to let or not let nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A police force that looks the other way lets them run a city. OK, and yours is a rhetorical device that I don't find particularly useful, either, especially given this administration's disregard for international legal systems. The activities that the mob engages in violate the laws of the communities (states and nations included) in which they operate. Those communities, states, and nations employ police of various sorts to enforce their laws. (Almost) nobody in those communities questions the right of the police to act on their behalf. What law is the DPRK violating in building nukes, and what community employed the US as its police force? These are not (just) rhetorical questions. If the DPRK is the mob, then of what community's laws is it in violation? Would the US would subject itself to that same authority? In what community would (almost) nobody question our right to act on their behalf? One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its often associated with codependancy. I'm glad you brought up codependency. A common -- in fact, almost defining -- facet of codependent behavior is trying to solve someone else's problems when they didn't ask you to. Like invading a country to rid it of a dictator. there are simply no good options. Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last* resort, not the first. OK, let's go back 11 years. Clinton had the three options...he chose to pay money in a deal to slow down the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea. They agreed to stop processing fuel...leaving then with enough in hand for two nuclear weapons. Unsurprisingly, they had a clandescent program going on, and were in a position to develop enough enriched U for about 1 bomb every 3-4 years. Much better than 50/year. Are you defending John's statement, there are simply no good options with this history lesson? If Clinton had chosen to do nothing, that would go some way towards demonstrating that there were and are *no* good options. But, as you point out, Clinton did chose an option. Is the jury still out as to whether it is a good option? Did he choose the only remaining good option? What is your criteria for a good option? At the time the North Korean government was willing to starve millions of its own citizens to death as an acceptable price for not just changing the government, but not changing how the government was run. If Clinton wasn't given a third half loaf option at the last minute, [digression] I see this a lot in your messages: paragraphs that just sort of trail off in the middle of a sentence. Is it something technical, or do you start a paragraph, think of something else to write, and never get back to finishing the one you left off? I'm genuinely curious. [/digression] You obviously were not in favor of stopping the weapons development by force. 200k dead S. Koreans was certainly an overwhelming price. But, to let North Korea get to the point where they could flatten both South Korea and Japan (say 90% dead) would be inexcusable. Inexcusable by whom? The UN? Like we care. International courts? Don't make me laugh. This gets back to the point I made earlier about global entities to whom the US would subject itself. We have a government that's willing to starve millions of its own citizens for some principal. Why wouldn't it be willing to bring down the whole region instead of giving up that principal? If we don't stop it, when we can, are we not somewhat responsible for that result? Without getting too tautological, we can take responsibility for whatever we choose to consider ourselves
RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
Dan Minette wrote From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over the starving Koreans kiddies etc... What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already mentioned this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any answer but Bush is a bad boy. Did you ask yourself what are the differences between N. Korea and Iraq? Is there any difference in the estimated number of civilian casualties in each war? I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational one at that. I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things, or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high. But, that's not what you wrote. With all due respect, if you want a debate on the issue, dragging out old clichés isn't helpful. Think about it. AFAIK, we have one regular on this list who has expressed strong support of Bush. Gautam gave him a D- rating as president during the fall elections. I voted for him once, when he was reelected governor of Texas, because the Democrats ran a yellow dog against him. (A yellow dog Democrat is one who would vote for the Democrat even if they were running a yellow dog for the office.) I think his tax cuts are dangerous and counter-productive. I think his handling of the reconstruction in Iraq during the last two years shows criminal incompetence. Yet, I find myself arguing for him when you post because I think to myself he's no prize, but he's not _that_ bad. Dan M. Dan, I am unable to find what I wrote that you are referring to. I don't actually recall saying Bush is a bad boy, or anything like it. I said I did not like what he had done (or more how he had done it). I said that I doubted that the well being of the Iraqi people was uppermost in his mind when he decided to invade Iraq. In neither of those cases did I suggest he was bad. I can happily disagree with GWB without needing to consider him bad. What I was reacting too, and what prompted my colorful phrasing was the contention that GWB invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people. It was being suggested that this was maybe the _real_ reason behind the invasion (Most of the others having run out of any relevance long ago) and that that was made clear at the time, that he and the government put this forward in such a way that it had some parity with the issue of WMD. My memory is not perfect, but it ain't that bad. Frankly, the whole idea is total revisionist bollocks. He was (and as President of the USA this is his job, so it's not insulting to suggest it I hope) acting in what he saw as the best interests of the United States. And, no, I don't think that makes him bad. Your point about old clichés is an interesting one. I am sorely tired of being fed similar things, day after day, lies basically, dressed up often in some slighty funkier post-cliché form, by my and other governments et al. Groupthink is not my scene. If others wish to paint the invasion of Iraq as some noble 'Save the Iraqi kiddies from Evil' thing then fine, they can go right ahead. I would call them naive, but if that's what they want, fine. I am sorry that I overreact to such concepts as the idea that I should be ashamed of myself for having misgivings about the war, or that I am somehow complicit in the torturing of Iraqi children because of these misgivings, by using a few tired old cliché's. I guess its cos I am sometimes speechless at the hypocrisy (not specifically of those here, don't get me wrong) of the world, and how easily we forget because it suits us. We invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi children from Saddam. Yea. Right. Sure. We invaded Iraq because we saw a chance to get away with it, on the back of 9/11, and because it suited our long term strategic interests. (*Note - long term strategic interests involve many things, including even making life a little better for people. And long term strategic interests are not, of themselves, a bad thing). I can deal with that, I don't need it dressed up as some noble humanitarian act to be able to sleep at nights. To pretend that would be a lie, and there have enough of them already. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:55:50 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote I don't think Nick intended to call you a McCarthyite It was a particular argument that I said I see as McCarthyism. It was Gautam's argument, which I'm sure doesn't represent the whole of his being and thinking, not the man himself, just an argument he made in a couple of messages on an obscure Internet mailing list. And I stand by my view still, as he'd have us believe that anyone who participates in any peace and justice demonstration in the United States is a Stalinist because a guy (Clark) behind an organization (AIC) that is related to an anti-Trotsky organization (WPP), helped to create another organization (ANSWER) that is trying to coordinate action among a large number of independently organized local and regional peace and justice organizations. OK, I'm done arguing with you Nick, because you're just lying now. That's simply dishonest. I don't know what's wrong with you, but I'm finished. I didn't say any of that, and you know I didn't say any of that, and the fact that you feel compelled to lie and pretend that I said something like that suggests you might want to think about _therapy_, not politics. For the last time - because I have no interest in continuing this. I didn't say any of that. I did say that people who supported those organizations - whatever their own beliefs - should be ashamed of themselves. And they should be. If you _have_ no shame, then I guess you wouldn't be. But that's not my game. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
At 01:34 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more umm, nuance in my typing tone. It clearly wasn't a very good rhetorical question - and it wasn't the lack of nuance, it was the weakness of the question itself. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I stand by my view still, as he'd have us believe that anyone who participates in any peace and justice demonstration in the United States is a Stalinist because a guy (Clark) behind an organization (AIC) that is related to an anti-Trotsky organization (WPP), helped to create another organization (ANSWER) that is trying to coordinate action among a large number of independently organized local and regional peace and justice organizations. Nick, Dan M., Gautam, and probably others have pointed out to you on multiple occasions that it is *not* _anyone_ who participates in _any_ peace and justice demonstration. It has been _specific_ people participating in _specific_ demonstrations, sponsored by _specific_ groups. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
OK, I'm done arguing with you Nick I for one am in favour of changing the subject. As you said Gautam, we are just going over lots of old ground here. We agree to differ. And I retract any remarks which you found offensive. I did not intend them to be so, and I don't think Nick et al did either. If we are going to argue, let's argue over the future, not the past. Or perhaps we could even agree on a few things. I think if we put our energies toward a few different topics, we might find that happens more often than we might think. So have a good weekend. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
JDG wrote At 01:34 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more umm, nuance in my typing tone. It clearly wasn't a very good rhetorical question - and it wasn't the lack of nuance, it was the weakness of the question itself. Well, it was a poorly phrased rhetorical question, I concede. As a simple question, I don't see it as weak. I am not sure how such a blunt question can be weak (or strong for that matter) And why isn't the US invading North Korea? I will happily accept that the answer may be obvious, hence the rhetorical nature of it, and even that it could be considered a stupid question. Anyway. What do you think should be done about North Korea? It is troublesome that such an unstable state has nuclear weapons. And an apparent lack of interest in its own peoples welfare. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:58:58 -0400, JDG wrote Dan M., Gautam, and probably others have pointed out to you on multiple occasions that it is *not* _anyone_ who participates in _any_ peace and justice demonstration. It has been _specific_ people participating in _specific_ demonstrations, sponsored by _specific_ groups. Really? Here's what Gautam wrote: International ANSWER, the group primarily responsible for organizing the anti-war protests in the United States, is a Stalinist organiation that is actively pro-Saddam. They were all wrong. How can you read that as saying that ANSWER is behind specific people participating in specific demonstrations? The problems that I see in the statement are: 1. It is factually wrong. ANSWER is not primarily responsible for organizing war protests. ANSWER's goal is to try to coordinate the primary organizers, most of whom are local. There are many, many organizations, with various missions, beliefs and ideologies, who organize peace and justice events. 2. It is McCarthyist in its guilt-by-distant-association with WWP. ANSWER is not Stalinist. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:45 AM Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 Dan Minette wrote From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over the starving Koreans kiddies etc... What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already mentioned this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any answer but Bush is a bad boy. Did you ask yourself what are the differences between N. Korea and Iraq? Is there any difference in the estimated number of civilian casualties in each war? I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational one at that. I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things, or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high. But, that's not what you wrote. With all due respect, if you want a debate on the issue, dragging out old clichés isn't helpful. Think about it. AFAIK, we have one regular on this list who has expressed strong support of Bush. Gautam gave him a D- rating as president during the fall elections. I voted for him once, when he was reelected governor of Texas, because the Democrats ran a yellow dog against him. (A yellow dog Democrat is one who would vote for the Democrat even if they were running a yellow dog for the office.) I think his tax cuts are dangerous and counter-productive. I think his handling of the reconstruction in Iraq during the last two years shows criminal incompetence. Yet, I find myself arguing for him when you post because I think to myself he's no prize, but he's not _that_ bad. Dan M. What I was reacting too, and what prompted my colorful phrasing was the contention that GWB invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people. It was being suggested that this was maybe the _real_ reason behind the invasion (Most of the others having run out of any relevance long ago) and that that was made clear at the time, that he and the government put this forward in such a way that it had some parity with the issue of WMD. My memory is not perfect, but it ain't that bad. Frankly, the whole idea is total revisionist bollocks. Hmm, maybe part of the problem is that you jumped in the middle of a debatewithout seeing what at least I thought was the premise: whether the decision to go in was indefensible (maybe another word was used, but that was the idea). After a long sub-thread with Warren, we've agreed that he writes like a fiction writer (his poor excuse for that is that he _is_ a fiction writer and editorbut we'll let that pass for now ducking quickly ), so he used a bit of hyperbola there. Part of the background was the long debate _here_ on whether the invasion was the right thing to do, where the status of the people of Iraq came up frequently. In fact, one of the rules for a voluntary war given by Gautam was that it would, at least, do no net harm to the people in the region. Invading a dictatorship like, say, Singapore, would be different than invading Iraq because the people in Singapore do not live in fear of being tortured and killed by the government. I guess I can see where you thought that it was argued that it was pure benevolence on the part of the US, but that's certainly not what I was arguing. He was (and as President of the USA this is his job, so it's not insulting to suggest it I hope) acting in what he saw as the best interests of the United States. And, no, I don't think that makes him bad. Noand I think the criterion that one should do no significant harm to others while pursuing those interests is a valid oneand one that is usually met. I am sorry that I overreact to such concepts as the idea that I should be ashamed of myself for having misgivings about the war, or that I am somehow complicit in the torturing of Iraqi children because of these misgivings, by using a few tired old cliché's. I guess its cos I am sometimes speechless at the hypocrisy (not specifically of those here, don't get me wrong) of the world, and how easily we forget because it suits us. We invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi children from Saddam. Yea. Right. Sure. We invaded Iraq because we saw a chance to get away with it, on the back of 9/11, and because it suited our long term strategic interests. (*Note - long term strategic interests involve many things, including even making life a little better for people. And long term strategic interests are not, of themselves, a bad thing). I can deal with that, I don't need it dressed up as some noble humanitarian act to be able to sleep at nights. To pretend that would be a lie, and there have
Re: Peaceful Change L3
Robert Seeberger wrote: Think you could tone down the insult rhetoric a bit? Remember that you guys have an audience. Hear hear! Your (plural) need to put people down only serves to make you look arrogant and elitist. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
At 03:29 PM 4/21/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: Thus, Nick, we have the situation where choosing to continue condemnation and sanctions, etc. would result in the deaths of innocent Iraqis and war would result in the death of innocent Iraqis. I think that a great many people were able to judge that war would most likely result in the deaths of fewer Iraqis in the long run. Why wasn't this decision made in say June 2001? What was it that drove the timing? George Bush gave the axis of evil speech in January 2002, one year after being elected.Beterrn January 2002 and March 2003, the US spent a lot of time attempting to persuade the world of the merits of liberating Iraq, and listening to their objections. And why isn't the US invading North Korea? Why is it, as you put it doing nothing? The calculation has to include the probability of success. While doing nothing' in the DPRK is clearly resulting in the deaths of North Koreans, the probability that an invasion of DPRK would result in the flattening of Seoul, or worse, the detonation of one or more of the DPRK's nuclear weapons has to weigh in the balance *against* war in DPRK. That is, it is likely that a war against DPRK would likely result in more deaths than the status quo. And as I have noted, the DPRK situation is a key reason why it was important to liberate Iraq. Once a dictator acquires nuclear weapons, it is *too late*.So, to go back to your earlier question - once we learned in 2001 that the DPRK had built nuclear weapons, there was suddenly a very real possibility that an impoverished DPRK might sell a fully assembled nuclear weapon to a country with large oil revenues - like Iraq. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of JDG snips fair response And why isn't the US invading North Korea? Why is it, as you put it doing nothing? The calculation has to include the probability of success. While doing nothing' in the DPRK is clearly resulting in the deaths of North Koreans, the probability that an invasion of DPRK would result in the flattening of Seoul, or worse, the detonation of one or more of the DPRK's nuclear weapons has to weigh in the balance *against* war in DPRK. That is, it is likely that a war against DPRK would likely result in more deaths than the status quo. Yes, the realities of global politics. I guess thats what I was getting at. It suited the US to Invade Iraq, for a whole lot of reasons. It does not suit them to invade the DPRK. It wasnt cos GWB was worried about the little Iraqi kiddies, as my rather intemperate response to Gautum's post was trying to make clear. I am fine with that, its the dressing it up as some sweet natured lovey-dovey caring for the people of Iraq bit that annoys me. It was part of the Great Game. And if had not suited GWB to invade Iraq, almost no amount of starving kiddies would have made him. The timing was right, he had a justification ( one I believe he misused, and played upon the baser parts of human nature to get what he wanted, and to be fair, what he thought was best for America, and perhaps the world) and he took the opportunity. Good luck to him. Just dont expect me to buy that he did it for the poor starving kiddies of Iraq. He didn't. He did it as part of as plan to cement American control in a crucial part of the world. What annoys me is that he started a war. And he dragged my country in with him. I dont like staring wars. And there were other ways, flawed as they may have been. How patient do we need to be? When is enough enough? These are the questions I ask myself. And it set a precedent. This idea of a Justified War, who defines the parameters for that? Does it not give any nation the right, in a philosophical sense, to invade any other nation, on the grounds that they think it is just? Well, the US did it, Australia did it. England did it. Do you see my quandry. I am glad of be rid of Saddam, and I hope Iraq becomes a stable, strong democracy. But, and call me a wimp, but for mine, the only body that has the moral authority to condone the starting of a war is the united people of the world., in the only shape we currently have, ie, that of the UN. I know the UN is a mess, but if not them who? I asked the silly question, about does this validate 9/11. I know it does not. But where is that line, who decides? I am upset that we started a war. Its as simple as that. Without being attacked, we started a war, and a lot of people have died, and more will. This whole doctrine of premptive attack is so fraught with danger, it scares the crap out of me. And to do it on the basis of such flimsy and flawed evidence. Its dangerous incompetence in my mind, and I can see why the Arab world views it as American Imperalism. Thats cos, and I would be interested in your thoughts on this, thats cos it basically is. GWB was elected President of America, not the world. He chose to impose what he saw as American interests on the Middle East. I know why he did it, and in many ways it makes a lot of sense, if you are the President of the USA. Now, and this is another interesting question, is that democracy? And as I have noted, the DPRK situation is a key reason why it was important to liberate Iraq. Once a dictator acquires nuclear weapons, it is *too late*.So, to go back to your earlier question - once we learned in 2001 that the DPRK had built nuclear weapons, there was suddenly a very real possibility that an impoverished DPRK might sell a fully assembled nuclear weapon to a country with large oil revenues - like Iraq. I am opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. They are way kinky, nasty, bad shit, way too dangerous to have live, ( I think we need some on hand for odd alien invasion scenarios, but thats another story, I am talking about live nuclear weapons). But again, who decides that its just fine and hunky-dory for country A to have to have bunkers full of ticking ICBM's and yet a mortal sin, punishable by immediate invasion, for country B to even contemplate the idea of having a few scientists working on them in some back room. The American nuclear deterent is appareantly moral and justified, and needed... the DPRK's nuclear deterent is a crime against humanity. Apparantly. Just as the USA acts in its own interests, so does the DPRK. If the USA was threated with invasion, would it lay down its ICBM's cos they would kill a few people? Why arent we persecuting Pakistan or India, France or England. If you were the President of North Korea, what actions would you take to defend your country? Accord them the same need, and the same right to defend their way of life.
Re: Peaceful Change L3
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and maybe we should elect our representatives to that body rather than allowing someone to nominate borderline psycopaths to be our representative. -- Doug Ah, the height of rational argumentation - calling someone who disagrees with you a psychopath. Even when I _caricature_ leftists I couldn't come up with you, Doug. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
--- Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gautam Mukunda So Gautam, are you saying that the US invaded Iraq out of a deeply felt need to save the Iraqi people? Not cos of WMD risks, not cos of issues over oil? Again with this? Why are people who think _George Bush_ is dumb unable to understand the concept of doing things for more than one reason? Now, I know you are not, it was for a lot of complex intertwined reasons. So please leave a little of the high moral ground for others to stand on. Why, when they're abandoning it as fast as possible? Moral calculations are part of international relations. They are one of the most important parts. They are not the _only_ part, but that's not the same thing as saying that they aren't one part. It is possible to do things that are in your interest _and have them still be moral acts_. Call me a cynic, but I just can't see GWB weeping at night in bed over the plight of Iraqi children. I am not saying he is a bastard, but just that I doubt it was top of his list. And it certainly was not the thrust of the argument put to justify the war. It was, however, _a_ thrust. The argument before the UN was largely about WMD, because that was a legal argument. When the President spends time on an issue in front of Congress, it's a pretty major focus. Now, by David Brin standards, what you wrote above was a lie, because it's a misstatement of fact :-). But I don't operate by David Brin standards. It's just a mistake. President Bush spent lots of time talking about humanitarian reasons for invading. He spent more time on WMD. That doesn't mean that they weren't both important. It really just means that it's convenient for opponents of the war to _pretend_ they weren't both important. Also, your statement that peoples hands etc would still be being chopped off if the war had not happened. How can you say that? How do you know? Well, because Saddam had been doing it for more than 20 years and didn't seem to have any intent of stopping. I don't _know_ that Kate Bosworth isn't going to walk into my apartment in 30 seconds. I don't think it's very likely, though. Waiting Nope. No luck. There were other alternatives. That's one of the points that we lefty extremists keep making and that keeps falling on deaf ears. That's because it's an absurd point. Kate Bosworth is going to walk into my apartment. This statement does not make it more likely that it will happen. How about a UN sanctioned multinational force, that planned it properly and put in some thought about dealing with the peace. That did it with the full agreement of the only body that can be seen as bi-partisan enough to actually be doing it for moral reasons i.e. the terribly flawed, but at least globally based UN. Sure it was hard, those damn frenchies so much easier just to send in the Marines and shoot all the stupid ragheads... but at least it would have been a consensus. Again, this is an argument that flys in the face of _all_ the evidence. Did you say this about Kosovo? Kosovo didn't have Security Council approval either. In fact the only difference between the Kosovo and Iraq coalitions was the presence of Germany and France in the former. So if you _didn't_ make this argument about Kosovo, you cannot consistently make this argument about Iraq. If you _did_, we can talk about why you attach such moral importance to the decisions of two dictatorships. We've had this argument over and over again. _Three of the five members of the Security Council_ were going to vote against the invasion, no matter what. Now, you may feel that Communist China, a newly dictatorial Russia, and the French are moral authorities. But I don't, actually. So your point is - if these impossible things were to happen, you would have supported the war. This is the same thing as saying that there was no real situation to support the war. If I were a billionaire, then I suppose the odds that Kate Bosworth is about to come here would be higher. But I'm not, so _in the real world_, what could be done? Perhaps than you would have an Iraqi where 60 bodies turning up floating in some canal is not page three news. Well, I guess they all had their hands and tongues. Well, you know, they appear to have been killed by supporters of the old regime. Some of us think that's probably evidence that they weren't such nice people. And it's interesting; the main driver for US foreign policy is caring for cute little Iraqi kids unlike those greedy French and Germans etc, whose only interests are oil and power. No, but it's _a_ driver. There's plenty of evidence of just how the corrupting influence of just how ruthless and amoral French and German foreign policy is. The difference - to be blunt - is that the Left hates the US, so it _doesn't care_ about the actions of those other countries. Please, climb down from your high horse and discuss this
Re: Peaceful Change L3
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:08:23 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote If they do, why shouldn't that at least be part of the calculation when we decide what to do? If I understand this correctly, you're saying that you believe that I have said we should not care about the people affected by the status quo when we make a decision about going to war? You're saying that I'm arguing that it doesn't matter if people are suffering terribly, that isn't a consideration when deciding whether to go to war or a lesser form of intervention? If so, then perhaps you'd like to try again, because you really don't get what I am saying. At all. Want to try again? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If so, then perhaps you'd like to try again, because you really don't get what I am saying. At all. Want to try again? I'd hazard a guess, probably not. Since what you are saying is both nonsense and changes to some other nonsense (or just pathetic denial) every time someone explains what you are saying is nonsense. By the way, nice fire analogy, Gautam. If that wasn't clear enough, then it is hard to imagine what could be. Patience may be a virtue, but recognizing a lost cause is surely one, too! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:23:43 -0400, JDG wrote I would respond by noting that you seem to agree that Christians are called to do justice. I think that Christians should stop dictators if to do so would be justice. For example, if a dictator is killing his own citizens, and we have the power to save those lives from that killing, is it not just to do so?Even if it requires the use of force? This discussion has never been about whether or not to intervene (no matter how many times people try to reduce it to that), it is about *how* to intervene and why there is a moral presumption against war. For me, it has been about faith that regards war as failure, rather than pro-war triumphalism. Therfore, we could reasonably conclude that continuing these policies would likely not result in the removal of Saddam Hussein for several years - particularly based on our experiences in Cuba, DPRK, and elsewhere. Reasonable people have reached other conclusions as well. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change L3
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:39:11 -0400, JDG wrote Gautam's point was that he doesn't feel that you are acknowledging that *not* going to war has costs as well.You responded with a discussion of the costs of going to war. And how are they different? Is there an important distinction between the suffering of an Iraqi being executed or tortured and an American soldier being blown to bits or shot by a sniper? Is there a difference between the suffering of a child dying of malnutrition in Mexico and an American crushed under the World Trade Center? Is there an important difference between children starving in Central American, where I've been, and children starving in Iraq, where I haven't been? In case it still isn't clear, I was saying that not only do I know the cost of not doing anything about poverty, injustice, terrorism and torture, I've been with people who are paying those costs, touched them, listened to them. The problem of suffering is hardly limited to Iraq, so the idea that it is *obvious* that we had to spend untold billions making war against that country, even as people suffer and die in many places around the world makes no sense to me. The utilitarian arguments for war certainly become moot by considering the fact that for the money we're spending on this war, we could be saving far, far, far more lives by providing food and health care around the globe. The fact that we imagine we can solve one problem through force doesn't mean that it's okay to ignore myriad others that would take a bit more subtlety. This is a partial sports score, its like saying Baltimore 2 without at all mentioning the other half. Only if you believe that we're on different teams, or that war is a sporting match, that the rest of the world is the audience, rather than being our companions in problems and solutions. Under Saddam Hussein, many families were losing loved ones directly to torture, disappearances, and summary executions. Tens of thousands of others were losing their beloved children because Saddam Hussein was spending the country's oil revenue on palaces and weapons rather than basic food and medicine. Isn't that *exactly* what is happening in the United States right now? We've had tax cuts for the wealthiest, poverty is increasing and the war budget is skyrocketing. At what point does this justify an invasion? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you _did_, we can talk about why you attach such moral importance to the decisions of two dictatorships. I appear to have edited out a sentence in this post...odd. Not sure how that happened. The two dictatorships are Russia and China, of course, not Germany and France. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I understand this correctly, you're saying that you believe that I have said we should not care about the people affected by the status quo when we make a decision about going to war? You're saying that I'm arguing that it doesn't matter if people are suffering terribly, that isn't a consideration when deciding whether to go to war or a lesser form of intervention? If so, then perhaps you'd like to try again, because you really don't get what I am saying. At all. Want to try again? Nick No. That _is_ what you are saying. It may not be what you are _trying_ to say, but it is what you are saying. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change L3
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Under Saddam Hussein, many families were losing loved ones directly to torture, disappearances, and summary executions. Tens of thousands of others were losing their beloved children because Saddam Hussein was spending the country's oil revenue on palaces and weapons rather than basic food and medicine. Isn't that *exactly* what is happening in the United States right now? We've had tax cuts for the wealthiest, poverty is increasing and the war budget is skyrocketing. At what point does this justify an invasion? Nick sigh. I'm pretty sure that in the United States many families are _not_ losing loved ones directly to torture, disappearance, and summary executions. If they are, you're in a lot of trouble. Rest assured though, Nick, if something does happen to you, I'd want someone to do something about it more likely to be effective than asking it to stop. Another difference in our positions, I guess. I'm just going to ignore the rest of the rhetoric on the assumption that it's just a spinal reflex - tap a leftist and he'll claim that tax cuts are murder, no matter how ridiculous it looks. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:38:42 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote No, we can't, actually. None of them are all right, no. International ANSWER, the group primarily responsible for organizing the anti-war protests in the United States, Although I find the anti-war leadership to be a discouraging band, you're giving ANSWER way too much credit for leadership. Its goal is to coordinate action across many organizations. In reality, the anti-war movement seems to be full of petty turf wars and is not very well organized, although that's changing as the days go by. is a Stalinist organiation that is actively pro-Saddam. Good heavens. Guilt by association, anyone? ANSWER is associated with IAC, IAC is associated with WWP and WWP (which is disintegrating) didn't go along with Trotsky so it was labeled Stalinist. Meanwhile, the vast majority of war protestors are pro-democracy and reject virtually all of the WWP's ideology. Didn't you say something about doing things for more than one reason? There are extreme leftists at every anti-war protest, I expect. There are people who advocate the the overthrow of the U.S. government at them. But to paint the whole anti-war movement that way would be like saying that you're a danger to the public health because your body contains some germs. We have immune systems to deal with the nasties. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good heavens. Guilt by association, anyone? ANSWER is associated with IAC, IAC is associated with WWP and WWP (which is disintegrating) didn't go along with Trotsky so it was labeled Stalinist. Meanwhile, the vast majority of war protestors are pro-democracy and reject virtually all of the WWP's ideology. I'm sure that's true. So the next time Republicans march in something organized by the KKK you'll say, ohh, that's guilt by association, really you shouldn't critcize. Wait. No Republican in this day and age would _ever_ do something like that. It would be outrageous and unforgivable. We do have immune systems. One of them is you don't associate yourself with anything that someone like ANSWER organizes ever, for any reason. And if you don't think ANSWER is a Stalinist, pro-Saddam organization, Nick, you're just not paying attention. They'll tell you that themselves. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:29 AM Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 And why isn't the US invading North Korea? Why is it, as you put it doing nothing? As JDG said, the answer to that is fairly straightforward. South Korea begged Clinton not to. Even before they had nuclear weapons, the proximity of Seoul to the border, and the training of mutiple (10k) guns/morters on Seoul by North Korea would result in massive casualties. While there is little doubt that the US and South Korea would quickly win any war with North Korea, it wouldn't be quick enough to prevent 100,000-200,000 deaths. That was an overwhelming price to pay, and Clinton decided to accept the half a loaf solution with a verifyable freeze on plutonium extraction and production from the known nuclear reactor. JDG called this a failure, pointing out that other secret facilities were built and that N. Korea probably already had enough material for 1 or 2 more bombs. I differ with that assessemnt. As it stood, N. Korea had the ability to kill 100k-200k without nuclear weapons. This was the functional equivalant of roughly 2-3 atomic bombs of the caliber that N. Korea would have. If the US attacked, it was considered very likely that N. Korea would counterattack. Not making a partial deal and not attacking would leave the status quo in place. N. Korea had just extracted fuel rods that could be used for ~6 more weapons. They were also working on a large reactor that, by about 1998, woiuld be able to produce enough plutonium for about 40-50 bombs/years. Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over the starving Koreans kiddies etc... What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already mentioned this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any answer but Bush is a bad boy. Did you ask yourself what are the differences between N. Korea and Iraq? Is there any difference in the estimated number of civilian casualties in each war? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:47:14 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote No. That _is_ what you are saying. It may not be what you are _trying_ to say, but it is what you are saying. While there are undoubtedly things about me that I cannot see, but you can, it appears that perhaps you're getting rather carried away with that idea. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change L3
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:51:59 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote ... I'd want someone to do something about it more likely to be effective than asking it to stop. Ah, reduction to the absurd continues... the gap remains wide. he'll claim that tax cuts are murder, no matter how ridiculous it looks. Our spending reveals our priorities. Despite various reductions to the absurd, I think it is safe to say that we both believe that the issue of suffering people in Iraq is relevant to our decisions about intervention. Surely you're not suggesting that the issue of suffering people elsewhere, including our homeland, is irrelevant? I think I've invested more than I'd have liked in revisiting the decision to go to war, and I'm going to try to shift into the present. Though the blame game remains a constant temptation for me, I wish to resist it. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:36 AM Subject: Re: Peaceful Change L3 On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:47:14 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote No. That _is_ what you are saying. It may not be what you are _trying_ to say, but it is what you are saying. While there are undoubtedly things about me that I cannot see, but you can, it appears that perhaps you're getting rather carried away with that idea. That's not the point. The text anyone, including writes, has a plain sense to it. You write text that a number of people concur on the straightforward meaning of the text. That meaning is not what you say you intend to convey. It would be extraordinarily helpful to give clues we can better understand, if we are not understanding the meaning you intend to convey. It sounds about like this to me. You say A. We seem to agree A-B. Then I ask why you believe B and you say I'm jumping to invalid conclusions. I go back to A and A-B and I still don't get anything that shows me that I misunderstood the syllogism. Usually, the questions I ask are met with silence and another tact is given instead. I'm not trying to put you to the question, I'm just trying to figure things out. By asking questions, I hope I can fit what you write into a framework. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote I'm sure that's true. So the next time Republicans march in something organized by the KKK you'll say, ohh, that's guilt by association, really you shouldn't critcize. The WWP isn't organzing any anti-war rallies. It is hardly even organized itself. Like most every other extreme leftist organization on the planet, it ain't working. I don't favor McCarthyism for any cause. ... you don't associate yourself with anything that someone like ANSWER organizes ever, for any reason. Let me see if I do understand. If ANSWER is involved in organizing anything, I should have nothing to do with it, even if I agree with the purpose of the event? Is this the flip side of going along with *everything* that the good people organize? They seem like the same idea to me... what's that word for a tendency toward extreme authority? Starts with an f? ANSWER doesn't have any more authority over me than the GOP has over you, even though they're attached to various things we do. Is there any cause (or organism) that doesn't have extremist elements? And if you don't think ANSWER is a Stalinist, pro-Saddam organization, Nick, you're just not paying attention. Are you claiming they are pro-Saddam because Ramsey Clarke is U.S. counsel for Iraq? Or is there some other reason you are making this argument? Goodness, it seems as if you're saying that every war protester is seeking to return Saddam to power so that Iraq will be restored to the good ol' days before there were any sanctions. Please, explain to me why that isn't what you're saying? What the heck do you mean by pro-Saddam? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote The WWP isn't organzing any anti-war rallies. It is hardly even organized itself. Like most every other extreme leftist organization on the planet, it ain't working. I don't favor McCarthyism for any cause. Ah, the last defenses of the leftist who has lost an argument. Cry McCarthyism, however irrelevant it may be to the point. There's one more of those coming up... ... you don't associate yourself with anything that someone like ANSWER organizes ever, for any reason. Let me see if I do understand. If ANSWER is involved in organizing anything, I should have nothing to do with it, even if I agree with the purpose of the event? Yes. Is that so hard to understand? If the American Nazi Party had organized an antiwar event (which they did, I think) I suppose you think it would have been okay to show up, but I don't. It's that simple. If you believe in the cause that much, organize your own damn event. Is this the flip side of going along with *everything* that the good people organize? They seem like the same idea to me... what's that word for a tendency toward extreme authority? Starts with an f? Ah, the other defense of the pathetic left. Cry fascism. This isn't even worth discussing. If you're using it honestly (and I don't think you are, because you're too smart to actually think this) then, as they said in The Princess Bride, That word. I do not think it means - what you think it means. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:04 AM Subject: RE: Peaceful Change L3 ... you don't associate yourself with anything that someone like ANSWER organizes ever, for any reason. Let me see if I do understand. If ANSWER is involved in organizing anything, I should have nothing to do with it, even if I agree with the purpose of the event? I think that is not unreasonable. I wouldn't go to a Klan rally even if they were actually promoting something I agreed with. Let me give an example. Reasonable people can believe that we should tighten up our border security. But, I'd be outraged if my neighbors went to a Klan rally that advocated strong border controls. You really think I'm facist for believing that? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote Yes. Is that so hard to understand? If the American Nazi Party had organized an antiwar event (which they did, I think) Reduction to the extreme again! The parallel would actually be if the American Nazi Party was associated with an organization that was trying to coordinate activies of a bunch of loosely organized coalitions, one of which sponsored an event that I went to. Indulge me while I tell a story of guilt by association. Many years ago I was working on a story about a publicly supported construction project whose investors, as it turned out, included several organized crime figures (perhaps I should note that the local branch of Our Thing is mostly notorious for incompetence). A while later, I found that another investor was a well-respected judge, who had failed to include the investment on his legally required annual conflict-of-interest report. It was just a small one of many investments he made, and he made them through an attorney who seemed to manage most of his activity of this sort, and the attorney had a relationship through his law firm with the organized crime people. The red flag was not the fact that he was a co-investor with these crime family people, it was that he failed to report it. As I was working on this story, the judge was nominated to a rather high court. No more time to think about it, it's time to either publish the story or not. When I called him, he assumed I was writing a story about his nomination. When I asked him if he realized he hadn't reported that investment, he said it was probably just a clerical error and he would submit a revised statement. That's really no big deal, it happens fairly often. But he was aware of his investment; it wasn't arms-length. When I asked if he realized that so-and-so were investors in the same project, he sounded like he was going to have a heart attack. He started saying he was going to withdraw his name from consideration. He told me he'd always worked very hard to keep distance from that sort because he is the son of Italian immigrants. We dropped the story. Guilt by association stinks, even in the newspaper game, where the standards are quite low in comparison to courts. I'm sure you can trace a fairly short line from some of the organizations I'm involved in, such as Veterans for Peace, to extreme leftists. I'm also sure you can trace a short line from other organizations I belong to, such as my church or the Marine Corps League, to some extreme right-wing nutjobs, too. Life is full of conflicts. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:36 AM Subject: RE: Peaceful Change L3 When I asked if he realized that so-and-so were investors in the same project, he sounded like he was going to have a heart attack. He started saying he was going to withdraw his name from consideration. He told me he'd always worked very hard to keep distance from that sort because he is the son of Italian immigrants. Would working very hard to keep distance include trying to not have mob members at his parties and not going to mob sponsered events? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote Yes. Is that so hard to understand? If the American Nazi Party had organized an antiwar event (which they did, I think) Reduction to the extreme again! The parallel would actually be if the American Nazi Party was associated with an organization that was trying to coordinate activies of a bunch of loosely organized coalitions, one of which sponsored an event that I went to. sigh Not really, no. A short history of ANSWER, put together by a blogger and veteran of the Iraq War: http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002981.html Some highlights: The man who started it all was Ramsey Clark. Clark served as the US Attorney General under Lyndon B. Johnson, but has more recently made a name for himself by representing such upstanding world citizens as Liberia's Charles Taylor, Serbia's Radovan Karadzic, and Iraq's Saddam Hussein. ... Under the leadership of Ramsey Clark, the IAC was the only major anti-war group that refused to condemn Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Indeed, Clark actually flew to Baghdad and met with Saddam Hussein in November 1990, returning home with a handful of Saddam's guests (diplomats' families held hostage) as a token of the Iraqi dictator's goodwill. ... The IAC would go on to become leading apologists for Serbian war criminals in Bosnia and Kosovo, labeling reports of rape camps and ethnic cleansing fabricated atrocities (never mind those embarassing mass graves). When NATO unleashed a bombing campaign in response to the Serbian ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo, Clark flew to Belgrade to express his support for Milosevic. Not a good bunch of people. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:43:21 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Would working very hard to keep distance include trying to not have mob members at his parties and not going to mob sponsered events? If you're trying to draw a parallel to AIC and WWP, it is not apropos. WWP is not the organization that organizes anti-war events. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:28 PM Subject: Re: Peaceful Change L3 On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:43:21 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Would working very hard to keep distance include trying to not have mob members at his parties and not going to mob sponsered events? If you're trying to draw a parallel to AIC and WWP, it is not apropos. WWP is not the organization that organizes anti-war events. I thought ANSWER organized some. If not, then were they invited to speak at them? If they just showed up, and the organizers of the rally distanced themselves from ANSWER, then that's very reasonable. So, if you dispute the facts in Gautam's assertions then I'd be interesting in seeing countering evidence. But, I'm almost positive that I've seem some folks from that group speaking from the podium at anti-war rallies. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:50:03 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote Under the leadership of Ramsey Clark, the IAC was the only major anti-war group that refused to condemn Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. So, we've jumped from organizations that put together anti-war events, such as South Bay Mobilization here in my area, to ANSWER, which tries to coordinate activites of organizations like it, to AIC, with which ANSWER has an affiliation... and AIC has some ties to some people who disagreed with Trotsky, and he opposed Stalin, so therefore the anti-war demonstrations are Stalinist. Come on. What were you just saying about conspiracy theories? Ramsey Clark is representing Saddam Hussein. You say that makes him a bad person. Are you saying that anybody who would provide legal representation for Saddam Hussein is bad? Or that anyone who represents any criminal is bad? Are you opposed to civil rights, fair trials, the right to be represented by an advocate? Does he have any right to a trial, or should be just shoot him? Where do you draw the line? It seems as if you're saying that Clark's representation of Saddam proves that Clark is a bad person... how did you get there? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
On Apr 21, 2005, at 6:13 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and maybe we should elect our representatives to that body rather than allowing someone to nominate borderline psycopaths to be our representative. -- Doug Ah, the height of rational argumentation - calling someone who disagrees with you a psychopath. Even when I _caricature_ leftists I couldn't come up with you, Doug. Well, while borderline psychopath is an extreme sentiment, I wouldn't be so easily dismissive of the case against Bolton. His behavior apparently has been ... erratic at times, and it's not necessarily the best idea to position someone with a heavily aggressive -- one might say bullying -- method of dealing with disagreement in the position of being the US ambassador to the UN. If the US currently has image issues with other nations, for example, it might not be the best plan to appoint as ambassador someone who (if reports of his past behavior are correct) seems to embody the way this nation is perceived by a significant proportion of people in other nations. That is, if Bolton's an erratic man prone to fits of rage, is he really the best choice to serve as our face to the UN assembly? It seems to me that a wiser choice would be someone who is *consistently* an effective negotiator and bridge builder. On a different tack, what would be the merits and disadvantages of having the position be decided by election rather than appointment? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:53:22 -0500, Dan Minette wrote ... To me, the only difference between this and 6 million lies is the magnitude of the denial. And because of Ramsey Clark's actions, it is wrong to have anything to do with any anti-war group in the United States Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
On Apr 21, 2005, at 7:01 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: By the way, nice fire analogy, Gautam. If that wasn't clear enough, then it is hard to imagine what could be. Patience may be a virtue, but recognizing a lost cause is surely one, too! I thought the fire analogy was flawed in an important respect: Fire is not volitional. National leaders are. *Presumably* this means the latter can be swayed or reasoned with. It was certainly evocative imagery, but the flaw really stood out to me. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:11 PM Subject: Re: Peaceful Change L3 On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:53:22 -0500, Dan Minette wrote ... To me, the only difference between this and 6 million lies is the magnitude of the denial. And because of Ramsey Clark's actions, it is wrong to have anything to do with any anti-war group in the United States No. Because of the actions of his group, it is wrong to associate with _that group_. Don't go to _their_ rallies. Don't invite them to speak at yours. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
On Apr 21, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: So the next time Republicans march in something organized by the KKK you'll say, ohh, that's guilt by association, really you shouldn't critcize. Wait. No Republican in this day and age would _ever_ do something like that. You seem to be suggesting here that no Klan members are Republicans. Are you certain? Or do you mean instead that no elected Republican official would show public support for the Klan? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
--- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 21, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: So the next time Republicans march in something organized by the KKK you'll say, ohh, that's guilt by association, really you shouldn't critcize. Wait. No Republican in this day and age would _ever_ do something like that. You seem to be suggesting here that no Klan members are Republicans. Are you certain? Or do you mean instead that no elected Republican official would show public support for the Klan? The latter - or, more accurately, that none _should_ (I'm sure it's possible to find one who has), and that if one did, everyone would attack him/her, and they _should_ do so. The fact that Robert Byrd - the seniormost Democrat in the Senate - is a former Klan leader is an embarassment to the whole country. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
On Apr 21, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You seem to be suggesting here that no Klan members are Republicans. Are you certain? Or do you mean instead that no elected Republican official would show public support for the Klan? The latter - or, more accurately, that none _should_ (I'm sure it's possible to find one who has), and that if one did, everyone would attack him/her, and they _should_ do so. Agreed on all those counts, yeah. The last time I heard of anyone marginally associated with the Republican party also being associated with the Klan, it was David Duke, and IIRC he was more or less pilloried for it. The fact that Robert Byrd - the seniormost Democrat in the Senate - is a former Klan leader is an embarassment to the whole country. It's a problem. It's a significant one. But there've been some rather reactionary sentiments to come from other elected Republican officials. I seem to recall problems with both Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, but can't remember the particulars. But hey, there's a new Pope with a history in the Hitlerjugend, so who are we to judge? ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
At 02:09 PM Thursday 4/21/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 21, 2005, at 6:13 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and maybe we should elect our representatives to that body rather than allowing someone to nominate borderline psycopaths to be our representative. -- Doug Ah, the height of rational argumentation - calling someone who disagrees with you a psychopath. Even when I _caricature_ leftists I couldn't come up with you, Doug. Well, while borderline psychopath is an extreme sentiment, I wouldn't be so easily dismissive of the case against Bolton. His behavior apparently has been ... erratic at times, and it's not necessarily the best idea to position someone with a heavily aggressive -- one might say bullying -- method of dealing with disagreement in the position of being the US ambassador to the UN. If the US currently has image issues with other nations, for example, it might not be the best plan to appoint as ambassador someone who (if reports of his past behavior are correct) seems to embody the way this nation is perceived by a significant proportion of people in other nations. That is, if Bolton's an erratic man prone to fits of rage, is he really the best choice to serve as our face to the UN assembly? So what if he decides to, oh, pound his shoe on the table? It's not like the UN hasn't seen that before . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ramsey Clark is representing Saddam Hussein. You say that makes him a bad person. Sigh Continuing my descent down the rabbit hole... Ramsey Clark _is_ a bad person. Defending Saddam Hussein was really just a confirmation of that fact, as anyone with eyes to see knew it. From Salon Magazine, which by most people's standards is a left-wing site: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/ The title of the article is Ramsey Clark, The War Criminal's Best Friend which kind of tells you what you need to know. After this article was written he defended people who committed genocide in Rwanda. It's not just that he's Saddam's defense attorney - although making your entire practice out of genocidal mass murderers seems like an odd way to go about things - it's that there is no enemy of the United States, no matter how vile whom he does not support. The fact that you feel somehow compelled to defend such a thoroughly disgusting figure leads me to ask, Nick, if there is any opponent of President Bush whom you don't think is one of the good guys? No matter how viciously anti-American, deluded, or actively vile? I mean, really, defending Ramsey Clark? What's next - telling us how Kim Jong Il is really a misunderstood warm and fuzzy guy? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:26:53 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote The fact that you feel somehow compelled to defend such a thoroughly disgusting figure When did I defend Ramsey Clark? I was trying to follow an argument you offered. I'm not taking issue with your assessment of Ramsey Clark. I'm not even commenting on him. I'm taking issue with your association of him and his politics with *anybody* who would participate in any peace and justice event. In that I see as McCarthyism -- guilt by association, very distant association in this case. You went to Harvard, so should we assume that you therefore endorse and stand for Jim Wallis' ideas, since he teaches there? Heck, you participate in Brin- L and so do I, so does that mean you endorse all of *my* ideas? All of David Brin's? Are your conservative friends going to tell you that by participating here, you are showing that you are a fool, a traitor or worse? That's guilt by much closer association than you're proposing is true of Clark and the peace movement. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 6:48 PM Subject: RE: Peaceful Change L3 On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:26:53 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote The fact that you feel somehow compelled to defend such a thoroughly disgusting figure When did I defend Ramsey Clark? quote Ramsey Clark is representing Saddam Hussein. You say that makes him a bad person. Are you saying that anybody who would provide legal representation for Saddam Hussein is bad? Or that anyone who represents any criminal is bad? Are you opposed to civil rights, fair trials, the right to be represented by an advocate? Does he have any right to a trial, or should be just shoot him? Where do you draw the line? It seems as if you're saying that Clark's representation of Saddam proves that Clark is a bad person... how did you get there? end quote I'm taking issue with your association of him and his politics with *anybody* who would participate in any peace and justice event. In that I see as McCarthyism -- guilt by association, very distant association in this case. Nick, are you reading different posts than I am? Dan M. You went to Harvard, so should we assume that you therefore endorse and stand for Jim Wallis' ideas, since he teaches there? Heck, you participate in Brin- L and so do I, so does that mean you endorse all of *my* ideas? All of David Brin's? Are your conservative friends going to tell you that by participating here, you are showing that you are a fool, a traitor or worse? That's guilt by much closer association than you're proposing is true of Clark and the peace movement. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:56:59 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Nick, are you reading different posts than I am? I don't see how you are reading that as defense of Ramsey Clark. I asked if the fact that he's defending Saddam Hussein proves that he is a bad person. If it is true, then he is a bad person. If it is not true, then it doesn't prove anything, since it only means that defending Saddam does not make a person necessarily bad. I don't see how the fact that he's chosen to defend genocidal dictators proves his goodness or badness one way or the other. If he's only doing these things in order to have a platform to attack the administration's policies, without really defending Saddam, then I have no problem considering that to be bad. If he's doing it out of a sense of fairness for all people, seeking justice for those whom seem to least deserve it, then he may be doing a good thing. But those are entirely unrelated the the argument at hand. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:04 AM Subject: RE: Peaceful Change L3 ... you don't associate yourself with anything that someone like ANSWER organizes ever, for any reason. Let me see if I do understand. If ANSWER is involved in organizing anything, I should have nothing to do with it, even if I agree with the purpose of the event? I think that is not unreasonable. I wouldn't go to a Klan rally even if they were actually promoting something I agreed with. Let me give an example. Reasonable people can believe that we should tighten up our border security. But, I'd be outraged if my neighbors went to a Klan rally that advocated strong border controls. You really think I'm facist for believing that? That depends on if ANSWER is in any reasonable way equivilent to the KKK. The KKK is known to have killed people. ANSWER is desperate for support and will include even extremists. To me, making ANSWER and the KKK in any way equivilent is an exercise in idiocy. xponent A Compendium Of Whackos Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To me, making ANSWER and the KKK in any way equivilent is an exercise in idiocy. xponent A Compendium Of Whackos Maru rob I don't think so, Rob. I'm assuming that you just haven't looked at them in detail - they're purely a front group for a Stalinist organization. That's it -, as far as I can tell they really have no indpendent existence, something that's been confirmed all across the political spectrum that I have heard. The whackos of the Left are not less acceptable than the whackos of the right - the people they support killed more people, if nothing else, something that the left hsa carefully tried to erase from our historical memory. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
Gautam Mukunda wrote: Ah, the other defense of the pathetic left. Cry fascism. This isn't even worth discussing. If you're using it honestly (and I don't think you are, because you're too smart to actually think this) then, as they said in The Princess Bride, That word. I do not think it means - what you think it means. Think you could tone down the insult rhetoric a bit? Remember that you guys have an audience. TIA xponent Concrete Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Think you could tone down the insult rhetoric a bit? Remember that you guys have an audience. TIA xponent Concrete Maru rob I'm sorry, Nick just called me a McCarthyite and a Fascist and you object to me telling Nick the word doesn't mean what he claims it means? I mean, as a conservative I accept that this is an automatic reaction - disagree with a leftist and being called a fascist is pretty much a first response - but this is a bit much. If I wanted to insult him, trust me, it would have been a lot more pointed than that. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You went to Harvard, so should we assume that you therefore endorse and stand for Jim Wallis' ideas, since he teaches there? Heck, you participate in Brin- L and so do I, so does that mean you endorse all of *my* ideas? All of David Brin's? Are your conservative friends going to tell you that by participating here, you are showing that you are a fool, a traitor or worse? That's guilt by much closer association than you're proposing is true of Clark and the peace movement. Nick OK, this is just pointless at this point. Nick, do you know _anything_ about Ramsey Clark? Read a single one of his interviews? Noticed that he was accepting awards from the genocidal government in Serbia? Checked up on what he says about the United States? At this point we're pretty much in cloud cuckoo land. By the way, Jim Wallis was a Fellow at some center at the KSG which, I have to tell you, isn't really the earth-shattering credential that you've managed to persuade yourself it is, but okay. No, it's not at all a much closer connection. If I go to something that someone has organized for the explicit purpose of promoting their agenda - this is a much closer connection than attending a school where the guy was an obscure hanger-on of a center at a school affiliated with the one where I got a degree. Heck, I was a Program Coordinator at the Kennedy School and the first I heard of Wallis was when I saw him bloviating on TV. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 21, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: So the next time Republicans march in something organized by the KKK you'll say, ohh, that's guilt by association, really you shouldn't critcize. Wait. No Republican in this day and age would _ever_ do something like that. You seem to be suggesting here that no Klan members are Republicans. Are you certain? David Duke Or do you mean instead that no elected Republican official would show public support for the Klan? Maybe a Klan memberG xponent The Argument Works Both Ways Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To me, making ANSWER and the KKK in any way equivilent is an exercise in idiocy. xponent A Compendium Of Whackos Maru rob I don't think so, Rob. I'm assuming that you just haven't looked at them in detail - they're purely a front group for a Stalinist organization. That's it -, as far as I can tell they really have no indpendent existence, something that's been confirmed all across the political spectrum that I have heard. The whackos of the Left are not less acceptable than the whackos of the right - the people they support killed more people, if nothing else, something that the left hsa carefully tried to erase from our historical memory. Dr Brin, I mean Gautam.G..you seem to be saying that ANSWER has killed people. More peole than the KKK if I am reading you correctly. I think that deserves some explaination. xponent Just Teasing You Dude! Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dr Brin, I mean Gautam.G..you seem to be saying that ANSWER has killed people. More peole than the KKK if I am reading you correctly. I think that deserves some explaination. xponent Just Teasing You Dude! Maru rob :-) The people they support. ANSWER's parent organization is Stalinist. I don't mean this in a metaphoric sense - the way Nick used fascist against me, for example - but in a literal one. They actively supported Stalin himself, and various Stalinist dictators (Kim Jong Il and Saddam himself - Saddam, btw, considered Stalin to be his hero, which really does tell you everything you need to know). Ramsey Clark similarly didn't just defend Milosevic in court, but defended him rhetorically and politically _while he was committing genocide_. Milosevic wasn't Joe Stalin, but he wasn't a nice guy, either. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Think you could tone down the insult rhetoric a bit? Remember that you guys have an audience. TIA xponent Concrete Maru rob I'm sorry, Nick just called me a McCarthyite and a Fascist and you object to me telling Nick the word doesn't mean what he claims it means? I mean, as a conservative I accept that this is an automatic reaction - disagree with a leftist and being called a fascist is pretty much a first response - but this is a bit much. If I wanted to insult him, trust me, it would have been a lot more pointed than that. I can appreciate that, but when you take broad swipes with remarks like pathetic left it could easily be taken as an insult to anyone who votes left of center by anyone who votes left of center. I don't think you are intending to do such. You are a decent fellow and I think almost everyone would support me when I say so. It might help if you take that for granted in the times when tempers get a bit testy. I pay attention to the smart people on the list. I notice that guys like Dan and Ronn! and even Bob C make their points without stepping into a testosterone pissing contest. I try to follow that example and try to take the kindest interpretation of others comments I can. I don't think Nick intended to call you a McCarthyite (though I am just skimming mostly tonight and could be wrong), but if in fact he did, that is his problem and you should not allow it to become yours. The tit-for-tat games should have been left in the schoolyard and the high ground lies elsewhere. As someone who has commited this particular sin often enough and is tempted frequently, I would hope that those of you who have the advantage of a good education would endevour to match that knowledge with the wisdom of how to respond morally and ethically in stressful social situations. The enviroment of the List is much improved over the last couple of years (with a few exceptions and qualifications) and I hope we can continue to follow this trend. Gautam, you are one of the most respected members of our list. I hope that you know this and recognize that when people disagree with you it is not for a lack of or diminished respect. From outside the discussion I do not ever get such an impression. xponent Sharing The High Ground Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
Gautam Mukunda --- Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gautam Mukunda So Gautam, are you saying that the US invaded Iraq out of a deeply felt need to save the Iraqi people? Not cos of WMD risks, not cos of issues over oil? Again with this? Why are people who think _George Bush_ is dumb unable to understand the concept of doing things for more than one reason? Umm, Doh... You were the one going on about George's deep humanitarian concerns. I was just objecting to the weight you were placing on it. Perhaps we got an odd slant from the media down here, but it was WMD, WMD, imminent end of the world, WMD, WMD, ohh and by the way he is a bit of a bastard. Now, I know you are not, it was for a lot of complex intertwined reasons. So please leave a little of the high moral ground for others to stand on. Why, when they're abandoning it as fast as possible? Moral calculations are part of international relations. They are one of the most important parts. They are not the _only_ part, but that's not the same thing as saying that they aren't one part. It is possible to do things that are in your interest _and have them still be moral acts_. /me leaps a bit deeper into the pits of hell and immorality Yes, I know. I never suggested otherwise. Call me a cynic, but I just can't see GWB weeping at night in bed over the plight of Iraqi children. I am not saying he is a bastard, but just that I doubt it was top of his list. And it certainly was not the thrust of the argument put to justify the war. It was, however, _a_ thrust. The argument before the UN was largely about WMD, because that was a legal argument. When the President spends time on an issue in front of Congress, it's a pretty major focus. Now, by David Brin standards, what you wrote above was a lie, because it's a misstatement of fact :-). But I don't operate by David Brin standards. It's just a mistake. President Bush spent lots of time talking about humanitarian reasons for invading. He spent more time on WMD. That doesn't mean that they weren't both important. It really just means that it's convenient for opponents of the war to _pretend_ they weren't both important. What did I say that was a lie? I don't mind, I am just curious. And I am sure GWB spent a lot of time paying lip service to the save the children part. It would have been a focus to convince wavering lefties. I am not convinced however that it was really a concern in the briefing papers he got from the Pentagon. Judging by the aftermath, I'd say that's a pretty safe bet. Also, your statement that peoples hands etc would still be being chopped off if the war had not happened. How can you say that? How do you know? Well, because Saddam had been doing it for more than 20 years and didn't seem to have any intent of stopping. I don't _know_ that Kate Bosworth isn't going to walk into my apartment in 30 seconds. I don't think it's very likely, though. Waiting Nope. No luck. grin Ahh, that's cos she is down in Australia filming Superman Returns ! There were other alternatives. That's one of the points that we lefty extremists keep making and that keeps falling on deaf ears. That's because it's an absurd point. Kate Bosworth is going to walk into my apartment. This statement does not make it more likely that it will happen. How about a UN sanctioned multinational force, that planned it properly and put in some thought about dealing with the peace. That did it with the full agreement of the only body that can be seen as bi-partisan enough to actually be doing it for moral reasons i.e. the terribly flawed, but at least globally based UN. Sure it was hard, those damn frenchies so much easier just to send in the Marines and shoot all the stupid ragheads... but at least it would have been a consensus. Again, this is an argument that flys in the face of _all_ the evidence. Did you say this about Kosovo? Kosovo didn't have Security Council approval either. In fact the only difference between the Kosovo and Iraq coalitions was the presence of Germany and France in the former. So if you _didn't_ make this argument about Kosovo, you cannot consistently make this argument about Iraq. If you _did_, we can talk about why you attach such moral importance to the decisions of two dictatorships. We've had this argument over and over again. _Three of the five members of the Security Council_ were going to vote against the invasion, no matter what. Now, you may feel that Communist China, a newly dictatorial Russia, and the French are moral authorities. But I don't, actually. So your point is - if these impossible things were to happen, you would have supported the war. This is the same thing as saying that there was no real situation to support the war. If I were a billionaire, then I suppose the odds that Kate Bosworth
Re: Peaceful Change L3
On Apr 21, 2005, at 7:09 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 21, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: So the next time Republicans march in something organized by the KKK you'll say, ohh, that's guilt by association, really you shouldn't critcize. Wait. No Republican in this day and age would _ever_ do something like that. You seem to be suggesting here that no Klan members are Republicans. Are you certain? David Duke I hadn't forgotten him, but TTBOMK he is no longer active in politics. I think Gautam was speaking of the present day, not events of a few (how many?) years back. As it happens that wasn't what Gautam was saying anyway, so Duke's membership status in the Klan (are his dues current, or has he quit for good) doesn't factor in. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dr Brin, I mean Gautam.G..you seem to be saying that ANSWER has killed people. More peole than the KKK if I am reading you correctly. I think that deserves some explaination. xponent Just Teasing You Dude! Maru rob :-) The people they support. ANSWER's parent organization is Stalinist. I don't mean this in a metaphoric sense - the way Nick used fascist against me, for example - but in a literal one. They actively supported Stalin himself, and various Stalinist dictators (Kim Jong Il and Saddam himself - Saddam, btw, considered Stalin to be his hero, which really does tell you everything you need to know). Ramsey Clark similarly didn't just defend Milosevic in court, but defended him rhetorically and politically _while he was committing genocide_. Milosevic wasn't Joe Stalin, but he wasn't a nice guy, either. I went to answers website (I hope that doesn't make me a commieG) and couldn't find anything incriminating. (Other than they typical extreme left orgs on the steering commitee) Got Links? For such an organisation to have supported Stalin, it would have to be long lived. ANSWER has not been around *that* long. The problem I have with your argument is that Americans will go to anti-war protests for their own purposes, not the purposes of some sinister organization. So if every American went to an ANSWER organized protest, it would not do one whit towards supporting Stalin or Stalinism, or commienism, or even consumerism. It might not even stop a war. I think the same logic applies for Republicans (or Democrats). Little effort has been made to remove former members of the KKK from party membership and quite obviously that has not translated into a public acceptance of racist murder and bombings. I think there is a significant disconnect between the motivations of individuals and the intent of camoflauged organizations. I think a suspicion is justified but the automatic claim of connection is not. xponent Syllogisms? Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
Dan Minette From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 And why isn't the US invading North Korea? Why is it, as you put it doing nothing? As JDG said, the answer to that is fairly straightforward. South Korea begged Clinton not to. Even before they had nuclear weapons, the proximity of Seoul to the border, and the training of mutiple (10k) guns/morters on Seoul by North Korea would result in massive casualties. While there is little doubt that the US and South Korea would quickly win any war with North Korea, it wouldn't be quick enough to prevent 100,000-200,000 deaths. That was an overwhelming price to pay, and Clinton decided to accept the half a loaf solution with a verifyable freeze on plutonium extraction and production from the known nuclear reactor. JDG called this a failure, pointing out that other secret facilities were built and that N. Korea probably already had enough material for 1 or 2 more bombs. I differ with that assessemnt. As it stood, N. Korea had the ability to kill 100k-200k without nuclear weapons. This was the functional equivalant of roughly 2-3 atomic bombs of the caliber that N. Korea would have. If the US attacked, it was considered very likely that N. Korea would counterattack. Not making a partial deal and not attacking would leave the status quo in place. N. Korea had just extracted fuel rods that could be used for ~6 more weapons. They were also working on a large reactor that, by about 1998, woiuld be able to produce enough plutonium for about 40-50 bombs/years. Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more umm, nuance in my typing tone. Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over the starving Koreans kiddies etc... What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already mentioned this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any answer but Bush is a bad boy. Did you ask yourself what are the differences between N. Korea and Iraq? Is there any difference in the estimated number of civilian casualties in each war? I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational one at that. I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things, or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high. Apparently that means I am a child torturing Stalinist, and one with few manners at that. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:34 PM Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 Dan Minette From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 And why isn't the US invading North Korea? Why is it, as you put it doing nothing? As JDG said, the answer to that is fairly straightforward. South Korea begged Clinton not to. Even before they had nuclear weapons, the proximity of Seoul to the border, and the training of mutiple (10k) guns/morters on Seoul by North Korea would result in massive casualties. While there is little doubt that the US and South Korea would quickly win any war with North Korea, it wouldn't be quick enough to prevent 100,000-200,000 deaths. That was an overwhelming price to pay, and Clinton decided to accept the half a loaf solution with a verifyable freeze on plutonium extraction and production from the known nuclear reactor. JDG called this a failure, pointing out that other secret facilities were built and that N. Korea probably already had enough material for 1 or 2 more bombs. I differ with that assessemnt. As it stood, N. Korea had the ability to kill 100k-200k without nuclear weapons. This was the functional equivalant of roughly 2-3 atomic bombs of the caliber that N. Korea would have. If the US attacked, it was considered very likely that N. Korea would counterattack. Not making a partial deal and not attacking would leave the status quo in place. N. Korea had just extracted fuel rods that could be used for ~6 more weapons. They were also working on a large reactor that, by about 1998, woiuld be able to produce enough plutonium for about 40-50 bombs/years. Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more umm, nuance in my typing tone. Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over the starving Koreans kiddies etc... What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already mentioned this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any answer but Bush is a bad boy. Did you ask yourself what are the differences between N. Korea and Iraq? Is there any difference in the estimated number of civilian casualties in each war? I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational one at that. I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things, or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high. But, that's not what you wrote. With all due respect, if you want a debate on the issue, dragging out old clichés isn't helpful. Think about it. AFAIK, we have one regular on this list who has expressed strong support of Bush. Gautam gave him a D- rating as president during the fall elections. I voted for him once, when he was reelected governor of Texas, because the Democrats ran a yellow dog against him. (A yellow dog Democrat is one who would vote for the Democrat even if they were running a yellow dog for the office.) I think his tax cuts are dangerous and counter-productive. I think his handling of the reconstruction in Iraq during the last two years shows criminal incompetence. Yet, I find myself arguing for him when you post because I think to myself he's no prize, but he's not _that_ bad. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
Gautam wrote: Ah, the height of rational argumentation - calling someone who disagrees with you a psychopath. I don't know if I disagree with him. I do think the U.N. could use reform, but a conservative Republican colleague of his called him a serial abuser and three Republicans on the committee expressed doubts that he was fit for the job based on his behavioral anomalies... Even when I _caricature_ leftists I couldn't come up with you, Doug. I don't know. I think your EEVVIILL, EEVVIILL was pretty good. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:02:20 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote I'm sorry, Nick just called me a McCarthyite and a Fascist I'd appreciate it if you'd differentiate comments about behavior from comments about people... and questions from statements. and you object to me telling Nick the word doesn't mean what he claims it means? I mean, as a conservative I accept that this is an automatic reaction - disagree with a leftist and being called a fascist is pretty much a first response - but this is a bit much. If I wanted to insult him, trust me, it would have been a lot more pointed than that. I notice that you've been bringing in the conservative/liberal ideology division a bit lately. I hope that we can rise above such simplicity, which isn't working well for anyone in today's world, as far as I can tell. There are more than two sides to many issues and fewer than two for some. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:09:09 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote OK, this is just pointless at this point. Nick, do you know _anything_ about Ramsey Clark? Read a single one of his interviews? Noticed that he was accepting awards from the genocidal government in Serbia? Checked up on what he says about the United States? At this point we're pretty much in cloud cuckoo land. And what does that have to do with guilt by association? I hear you complaining about Clark, but you sure haven't convinced me that there is any sort of serious connection between AIC and the groups that demonstrate for peace and justice. Any *evidence* that there really is a Ramsey Clark-led conspiracy that is the hidden hand in charge of all peace ralleys? And is he perhaps a Knight Templar, too? Innuendo and guilt by association stink. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:55:50 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote I don't think Nick intended to call you a McCarthyite It was a particular argument that I said I see as McCarthyism. It was Gautam's argument, which I'm sure doesn't represent the whole of his being and thinking, not the man himself, just an argument he made in a couple of messages on an obscure Internet mailing list. And I stand by my view still, as he'd have us believe that anyone who participates in any peace and justice demonstration in the United States is a Stalinist because a guy (Clark) behind an organization (AIC) that is related to an anti-Trotsky organization (WPP), helped to create another organization (ANSWER) that is trying to coordinate action among a large number of independently organized local and regional peace and justice organizations. Gautam seems to be saying that this actually is not a set of distant relationships, but that everyone who participates in any event in this web of relationships is therefore Stalinist. If that isn't a concept worthy of McCarthy, I don't know what is. I'm quite sure that the leaders of activist groups are not under the command of Clark or contemplating, What would Ramsey do? Or What would Stalin do? Are we to believe that people who are outraged by the violence of war would worship a mass murdering dictator? I've met people who suggest ending the trouble in Iraq with nuclear weapons, who somehow think that because I lost a family member there, I'll agree. But they aren't at peace rallys. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:18:35 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote Note that Dan and I, for example, despite different positions on the war, have consistently acknowledged that going to war has costs. What's striking is the asymmetry here because, of course, _not_ going to war has costs as well, and the reason this discussion isn't going very far is the failure to acknowledge that simple fact. Good grief, Gautam. I've held the remaining hand of a double amputee from Iraq and could hardly speak as we looked into each other's eyes and I told him about Wes. snipping I'm not exactly clear how I was supposed to respond to your post unless I, personally, had died in Iraq. It was so emotional and yet irrelevant to the discussion. None of us have said that you don't care about American soldiers - although you've done your best in posts like this to imply that you do far more than people who disagree with you. The point of this discussion isn't caring about Americans (even though that's the most important thing for me), it's caring about _Iraqis_. You mention being a first responder. Let me see if an analogy in that context gets through. When firefighters go into houses, some of them may die. If they go into enough houses, some of them _will_ die. So a house is on fire and people inside it are burning to death. We can hear them screaming. You are saying - don't send firefighters into that house, some of them will die. Dan and I are saying - okay, that might be a reasonable position, because some fires are just too dangerous to send people in. But when you make that decision, isn't it important to take into account the people in the house? And you're saying, no, we should send the firefighters in, because we don't want firefighters to die. Other fires have gone out because we asked them to - we didn't have to send firefighters in. To which we reply, okay, but those fires have nothing in common with this fire, so that doesn't have anything to do with whether firefighters should go into _this_ fire. So you say - no firefighters should only go in when their _own_ house is on fire. To which we say, look, what if an entire apartment building was on fire? To which your response is that's absurd, but you won't explain why your criteria would allow us to send firefighters into that apartment building. So I say, look, all I'm saying is that the lives of people _inside the building_ are also a factor. To which your response is, look, I'm really angry, I know firefighters and you couldn't possibly Now, do you understand why some people might say - protecting the lives of firefighters is important. We all want to do that. It's really a little offensive that you imply that I don't want to do that. But I don't want a fire marshall to make decisions based solely upon the fact that fighting fires risks firefighters. It's also important to save the people in the buildings. We've talked about prayer a lot in this discussion - I am praying that this analogy is sufficiently clear that I don't have to spell out each particular parallel. So yes, I acknowledge that you've spoken to lots of soldiers have suffered. Have you spoken to Iraqis who, say, saw their children raped and tortured in front of them as a routine method of interrogation? How about ones whose hands, ears, or tongues were chopped off for opposing the regime? All of these are things that would be happening _right now_ if the war had not happened. They're also powerful and emotional. Why don't they matter? If they do, why shouldn't that at least be part of the calculation when we decide what to do? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
At 06:54 PM 4/17/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: When, according to our best understanding, we have an opportunity to decrease human suffering and death, when does God call us to let things unfold instead, increasing human suffering and death? When does God call us to say no when people ask for help? Who called for help? Exactly which Iraqis called for us to invade and occupy their country? Was there any evidence of even an partial consensus for that? Nick, this is a curious standard. Would a consensus of Rwandans been necessary to justify intervention in that country? Also, given the constrainst upon freedom of speech in Iraq, weren't the reactions of people dancing in the streets worth something to you? You later ask if must dictators be physically stopped? I would respond by noting that you seem to agree that Christians are called to do justice. I think that Christians should stop dictators if to do so would be justice. For example, if a dictator is killing his own citizens, and we have the power to save those lives from that killing, is it not just to do so?Even if it requires the use of force? I think that you sense the weakness of the rhetorical question must dictators be physically stopped? because you proceed shortly to the question of urgency: And we absolutely had to remove him from power as quickly as possible? Why? On what basis was there such urgency all of a sudden? I think that here you need to weigh the damage being done vs. the probability of success. For example, we know Saddam Hussein was killing some several thousand Iraqis each month. We also know that for 12 years, various condemnations of international condemnation; diplomatic, military and economic sanctions; covert support for opposition parties; and targeted airstrikes had failed to make any noticeable progress in dislodging him. Therfore, we could reasonably conclude that continuing these policies would likely not result in the removal of Saddam Hussein for several years - particularly based on our experiences in Cuba, DPRK, and elsewhere. Thus, Nick, we have the situation where choosing to continue condemnation and sanctions, etc. would result in the deaths of innocent Iraqis and war would result in the death of innocent Iraqis. I think that a great many people were able to judge that war would most likely result in the deaths of fewer Iraqis in the long run. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Lincoln Re: Peaceful change L3
At 07:32 PM 4/17/2005 -0700, Gautam wrote: --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our task should not be to invoke religion and the name of God by claiming God's blessing and endorsement for all our national policies and practices - saying, in effect, that God is on our side. Rather, we should pray and worry earnestly whether we are on God's side. --Abraham Lincoln Nick A quote entirely stripped of its moral and historical context - remarkably so, in fact. Lincoln is the historical figure you can _least_ enlist in your cause, Nick, because he is one whom most people agree is the paragon of the modern statesman who _also_ chose to fight an optional war far more terrible than any other his nation has ever fought, before or since. The Lincoln whom you quote approvingly _chose_ to unleash total war in a way that the West had not seen in centuries and the United States had never seen. He did this despite the opposition of most of the rest of the world (Britain and France, for example, _both_ supported mediation of the conflict and, de facto, the split of the United States into separate countries). Indeed, to this day, many Confederacy sympathizers in this country can't understand why Lincoln did not simply let the Confederacy walk, since substantial majorities in each of the Confederate States clearly wanted to go their own way. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change L3
At 04:27 PM 4/18/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:18:35 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote Note that Dan and I, for example, despite different positions on the war, have consistently acknowledged that going to war has costs. What's striking is the asymmetry here because, of course, _not_ going to war has costs as well, and the reason this discussion isn't going very far is the failure to acknowledge that simple fact. Good grief, Gautam. I've held the remaining hand of a double amputee from Iraq and could hardly speak as we looked into each other's eyes and I told him about Wes. I've visited our returning soldiers in VA hospitals. I've planted a few hundred crosses in the ground at an Iraq memorial. I've thanked and hugged more Marines in the last few months than I can count. I've seen my 21-year-old niece bury her husband of 13 months. A half-dozen relatives of dead soldiers and I share a kind of friendship for which I don't even have words. My father is mostly deaf from his time in the belly turret of a light attack bomber in WWII. I have had people die in my hands from violence. I've made the kind of triage decisions that cannot be left behind. I've spent time in dialog with people tortured and targeted by Central American death squads. I've traveled to squatter's settlements and remote Third World villages to learn from the poor, surrounded by children going blind and dying from malnutrition. Please spare me the arguments that I'm thinking magically and don't know the costs of action, inaction or anything in between. I choose to have hope for better ways of dealing with conflict *despite* the fact that my experiences scream at me to run and hide in cynicism or self- righteousness. It's a hell of a thing to suggest that anybody who lost a family member in Iraq is failing to acknowledge that our decisions about war come with costs. It's a hell of a thing to suggest that anybody who's been a first responder fails to acknowledge the cost of violence. I'm feeling pretty stinking angry right now and I'm extremely tempted to dump a truckload of whatthehelldoyouknow on you... but I know that you *do* know a great deal about the costs and benefits of political decisions. I acknowledge your education and contacts, so about how giving me the benefit of the doubt about my knowledge and experiences. Please, spare me the suggestion that I don't know or acknowledge that there are costs of going to war or not going to war. I know far more than I have words to describe. Peace! Nick Nick, I have quoted your whole piece here, because I am not at all sure how it responds to Gautam's point. Gautam's point was that he doesn't feel that you are acknowledging that *not* going to war has costs as well.You responded with a discussion of the costs of going to war. This is a partial sports score, its like saying Baltimore 2 without at all mentioning the other half. Under Saddam Hussein, many families were losing loved ones directly to torture, disappearances, and summary executions. Tens of thousands of others were losing their beloved children because Saddam Hussein was spending the country's oil revenue on palaces and weapons rather than basic food and medicine. These are costs of *not* going to war. Gautam was asking you to acknowledge this, and as near as I can tell, you have not bothered to respond. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Peaceful Change L3
Gautam Mukunda So yes, I acknowledge that you've spoken to lots of soldiers have suffered. Have you spoken to Iraqis who, say, saw their children raped and tortured in front of them as a routine method of interrogation? How about ones whose hands, ears, or tongues were chopped off for opposing the regime? All of these are things that would be happening _right now_ if the war had not happened. They're also powerful and emotional. Why don't they matter? If they do, why shouldn't that at least be part of the calculation when we decide what to do? So Gautam, are you saying that the US invaded Iraq out of a deeply felt need to save the Iraqi people? Not cos of WMD risks, not cos of issues over oil? Now, I know you are not, it was for a lot of complex intertwined reasons. So please leave a little of the high moral ground for others to stand on. Call me a cynic, but I just can't see GWB weeping at night in bed over the plight of Iraqi children. I am not saying he is a bastard, but just that I doubt it was top of his list. And it certainly was not the thrust of the argument put to justify the war. Also, your statement that peoples hands etc would still be being chopped off if the war had not happened. How can you say that? How do you know? There were other alternatives. That's one of the points that we lefty extremists keep making and that keeps falling on deaf ears. How about a UN sanctioned multinational force, that planned it properly and put in some thought about dealing with the peace. That did it with the full agreement of the only body that can be seen as bi-partisan enough to actually be doing it for moral reasons i.e. the terribly flawed, but at least globally based UN. Sure it was hard, those damn frenchies so much easier just to send in the Marines and shoot all the stupid ragheads... but at least it would have been a consensus. Perhaps than you would have an Iraqi where 60 bodies turning up floating in some canal is not page three news. Well, I guess they all had their hands and tongues. And it's interesting; the main driver for US foreign policy is caring for cute little Iraqi kids unlike those greedy French and Germans etc, whose only interests are oil and power. Please, climb down from your high horse and discuss this rationally. We were all there, we know what we were told, and it was precious bloody little about Iraqi children. At least that part of the drivel we were fed was honest. You nor I have any idea what other outcomes were possible, because GWB rushed into a war that he did not have to, on a timing driven by his electoral interests. Not, and I repeat, not, cos he was losing sleep over the fate of Iraqi children. I am sorry, but you have already suggested that cos of my misgivings about the war that had a secret crush on Saddam Hussien, to now suggest that I/we actually wanted to see the tongues torn out of Iraqi children is too much. Nick never suggested you did not care about American soldiers, and if you found it a 'little offensive' when you misread what he wrote, than why did you shoot it right back at him, suggesting he does not care about Iraqi children. Anyway, I am sorry for getting emotive. I actually wanted to debate some things: 1) Why did the war have to start when it did, what was the cost of waiting and planning better (and perhaps getting a broader level of support)? 2) What kind of precedent has been set for future invasions of countries that the US government takes a dislike to? 3) Are the acts of 9/11 now morally justified, as OBL did not like the US government and acted to release the children of America from what he perceives as a terrible godless tyranny that is tearing out their souls? 4) How many Iraqi people are dying each day now as compared to before the war, and does this matter? I will stop there as its getting emotional again. There are many sides to this debate, and none are all right, nor all wrong. That, I hope, we can all agree on. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
